Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2019, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Request for a Rear Yard Setback Variance to Construct a Covered Porch and Walkway at 832 Woodhill Drive C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated October 1, 2019 D.ADJOURNMENT E.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by­laws.  We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda.  If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.  Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, October 15, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for a Rear Yard Setback Variance to Construct a Covered Porch and Walkway at 832 Woodhill Drive Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­16 PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a 6­foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screened porch and walkway, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add on a 12­foot by 12­foot screen porch with a 12­foot by 6.5­foot screened walkway, and an approximately 130 square­foot open deck and walkway. The home is built at the 30­foot rear setback and the proposed locations of the screened walkway and porch would require a 6­foot rear setback variance. The applicant has proposed a project that encroaches six feet into the required rear yard setback. Staff believes that there are alternate locations on the property that can accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance from the City Code, and that the requested variance is for the applicant’s preferred placement of the screened porch. Furthermore, the City Code would permit the construction of an open deck, patio, and other similar improvements without the need for a variance. Due to these alternatives, staff does not believe the proposal meets the practical difficulties threshold required to grant a variance.  A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT Noreen Hoft, 832 Woodhill Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .55 acres  PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, October 15, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for a Rear Yard Setback Variance to Construct a Covered Porch andWalkway at 832 Woodhill DriveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­16PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a 6­foot rear yard setback variance for theconstruction of a screened porch and walkway, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to add on a 12­foot by 12­foot screen porch with a 12­foot by 6.5­foot screened walkway,and an approximately 130 square­foot open deck and walkway. The home is built at the 30­foot rear setback and theproposed locations of the screened walkway and porch would require a 6­foot rear setback variance.The applicant has proposed a project that encroaches six feet into the required rear yard setback. Staff believes thatthere are alternate locations on the property that can accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance fromthe City Code, and that the requested variance is for the applicant’s preferred placement of the screened porch.Furthermore, the City Code would permit the construction of an open deck, patio, and other similar improvementswithout the need for a variance. Due to these alternatives, staff does not believe the proposal meets the practicaldifficulties threshold required to grant a variance. A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTNoreen Hoft, 832 Woodhill Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family ResidentialLAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .55 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1­2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential District Section 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20­908, Yard Regulations BACKGROUND In March of 1989, the city approved a permit for the construction of a single­family home and attached garage. Numerous subsequent permits have been pulled for repairs, maintenance, and interior remodels; however, no permit has altered the footprint of either the house or garage. In October of 2004, the city approved a permit for the installation of a 120­square foot shed in the northwest corner of the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the 6­foot rear setback variance for the construction of a screen porch, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6­foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screen porch and walkway, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7­19. 3. A 10­foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Denial) Findings of Fact (Approval) Variance Document Development Review Application Narrative Plan Sheets Engineering Memo CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 15, 2019 CC DATE: November 12, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: Nov. 12, 2019 CASE #: 2019-16 BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add on a 12- foot-by-12-foot screen porch with a 12- foot-by-6.5-foot screened walkway, and an approximately 130 square foot open deck and walkway. The home is built at the 30-foot rear setback and the proposed locations of the screened walkway and porch would require a 6-foot rear setback variance. LOCATION: 832 Woodhill Drive (PID 251601930) OWNER: Noreen Hoft 832 Woodhill Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .55 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. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a 6-foot rear setback variance for the construction of screened porch, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” (Note: A motion for approval, conditions for approval and appropriate Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.) Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The home was built in 1989 with a 30-foot front yard setback and a 30-foot rear yard setback on a 220-foot wide by 100-foot deep lot. The property currently has approximately 2,900 square feet of lot cover resulting in 13.2 percent lot coverage. The footprint of the home has not changed since its initial construction; however, an interior remodel was conducted in 2014. The applicant bought the home in 1990, and they are proposing to construct an open deck/walkway, and screened porch/walkway off the rear of the home. While the City Code allows open decks to encroach up to 5 feet into required setbacks, enclosed structures are required to meet the district’s yard setback. The applicant’s proposal would encroach 6 feet into the required rear yard setback. The applicant has stated that a screened deck and walkway are necessary due to her husband’s disability, which limits his mobility and will soon require the use of a wheelchair. She notes that the proposed location will provide the easiest access to the deck and will prevent insects from getting into the home during ingress and egress. She has noted that an alternative location on the east side of the house would require a lengthier transit and would block the view from the living room windows. The applicant has also noted that the proposed screen porch location is over a level portion of the yard and that other locations would involve more extensive grading. The applicant has observed that several of the surrounding homes have decks and patios, and feels that the yard’s trees will screen the porch from the neighboring properties. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-908, Yard Regulations Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 3 of 7 BACKGROUND In March of 1989, the city approved a permit for the construction of a single-family home and attached garage. Numerous subsequent permits have been pulled for repairs, maintenance, and interior remodels; however, no permit has altered the footprint of either the house or garage. In October of 2004, the city approved a permit for the installation of a 120 square foot shed in the northwest corner of the property. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF) District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with a minim lot width of 90 feet and a minimum lot depth of 125 feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 22,000 square feet with a lot width of 220 feet and lot depth of 100 feet, and has an estimated 2,900 square feet (13.2 percent) lot cover. The existing house and shed appear to meet the district’s required setbacks. NEIGHBORHOOD Carver Beach The plat for this area was recorded in July of 1927 and divided the land up into a large number of small 20-foot wide by 100-foot deep lots. Over the following decades, many of these lots were combined to create larger lots; however, many of the resulting lots are still substandard or have atypical shapes. The plat and many of its lot combinations predate the City of Chanhassen and since their creation, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. The result of this is that many properties in the area do not meet one or more of the requirements of the city’s zoning code, and a significant number of properties are either non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Variances within 500 feet: 1981-02 825 Lone Eagle Road: Approved - 17’ front, 7’ side (garage) 1988-06 6901 Yuma Drive: Approved - 7,000 sq. ft. lot size (house) 1989-08 825 Ponderosa Drive: Denied - 3,000 sq. ft. lot size (subdivision) 1996-10 855 Lone Eagle Road: Approved - 13’ front (garage) 1999-10 6870 Nez Perce Drive: Approved - 11’ rear (addition) 2004-11 795 Ponderosa Drive: Approved - 7,068 sq. ft. lot size (house) ANALYSIS Rear Yard Setback The property’s existing home is currently located 30 feet from the rear lot line. The applicant is proposing constructing a 12-foot-by-12-foot screened patio and 12-foot-by-6.5-foot screened walkway off the rear of the house. Due to the angle of the house only a small, approximately 2.5 foot, section of the screened way and approximately half of the 12-foot-by- 12-foot patio would be located within the property’s 30-foot rear setback. The city establishes rear setbacks in order to provide for rear yard greenspace, afford both the property owners and rear neighbors a sense of privacy, and to minimize the visual impact of the principal structure on surrounding properties. Section 20-908 of the City Code allows unenclosed decks and patios to project up to 5 feet into required yards; however, screened porches are not entitled to this exemption. Enclosed and unenclosed decks are treated differently due to the differing visual impact of open and closed structures. While staff agrees that decks and screened porches are reasonable accessory uses for single-family homes and that the proposed screen porch is not abnormally large, the reasonable use standard is different from preferred use and location. Since an 11-foot-by-12-foot open deck would be permitted in the same location, it is difficult to take the position that the City Code does not permit reasonable use of the property. Variances should only be granted in situations where the nature of the parcel prevents reasonable use of the parcel. The applicant’s 100-foot deep lot is shallower than the 125 feet required in the Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 5 of 7 RSF district; however, at 220 feet wide, it is significantly wider than the 90-foot minimum width required in the RSF district. When the required 30-foot front and rear setbacks and 10-foot side setbacks are removed, the property has a 40-foot deep by 200-foot wide building pad. Staff believes this area provides several options to locate a screened porch without requiring a variance. The graphic below shows three potential locations that staff believes would accommodate a screened porch without a variance. Alternative Screened Porch Locations Alternative A would utilize the door located in the house near the intersection of the home and garage to provide access to a 6-foot wide covered walkway and 12-foot-by-12-foot screened porch on the flatter portion of the lot behind the garage. Alterative B would utilize the sliding door and an open walkway to access a 12-foot-by-12-foot screened porch built off of the corner of the existing home, and Alternative C would utilize the same walkway to access a 12-foot-by-12-foot screened porch built off of the east side of the house. If a covered walkway is deemed essential, as part of options B or C, it could be accommodated with a much less intensive 2-foot rear yard variance for a small section of the walkway that would encroach into the required setback. As noted earlier, an open deck could be constructed along the back or sides of the house encroaching up to five feet into the required rear setback without requiring a variance. In order to grant a variance, the city must find that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” is clarified to mean that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by Chapter 20 of the City Code. In this case, staff believes that availability of alternative configurations for a screened porch or open deck designs that meet the requirements of Chapter 20 means that staff must recommend denial of the requested variance. Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Impact on Neighborhood Carver Beach is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and six variances have been given to the 66 properties within 500 feet of 832 Woodhill Drive. The one variance for a rear yard setback is currently a technical variance, with the property owner owning a second lot behind their existing home; however, staff does not believe that the owner owned the second lot at the time the variance was granted. Structures in the immediate vicinity appear to meet the district’s required rear yard setback, with non-conforming front and side yard setbacks being much more common. Due to the fact that most lots in this subdivision are only 100 feet deep, encroaching on the rear setback has a more pronounced impact as neighboring properties have less rear yard to offset the impact. That being said, there is a lot of vegetation between 832 Woodhill Drive and its neighbors which will provide a significant amount of screening, especially during leaf-on conditions. Overall, staff does not believe that the proposed variance would fundamentally alter or detract from the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 7 of 7 SUMMARY The applicant has proposed a project that encroaches six feet into the required rear yard setback. Staff believes that there are alternate locations on the property that can accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance from the City Code, and that the requested variance is for the applicant’s preferred placement of the screened porch. Furthermore, the City Code would permit the construction of an open deck, patio, and other similar improvements without the need for a variance. Due to these alternatives, staff does not believe the proposal meets the practical difficulties threshold required to grant a variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the 6-foot rear setback variance for the construction of a screened porch, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screen porch and walkway, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 3. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) 3. Variance Document 4. Development Review Application and Narrative 5. Plan Sheets 6. Engineering Memo G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-16 832 Woodhill Drive VAR\Staff Report-832 Woodhill Drive_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Noreen Hoft for a 6-foot rear setback variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-16. On October 15, 2019, 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: Lots 2543 through 2553, inclusive, Carver Beach 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 zoning code establishes minimum rear yard setbacks to provide greenspace and separation between neighboring primary structures. While the zoning code does allow open decks, patios, and sheds to be located within required rear yards, principal structures and enclosed porches are limited to a property’s buildable area. The intent of this limit is to minimize the visual impact of tall-enclosed structures and to create a sense of space and openness between neighboring homes. In this case, both the applicant’s property and rear neighbor have lots not meeting the RSF district’s minimum lot depth, a situation that exacerbates the impact of encroachments into the required rear yard. Permitting an enclosed porch to encroach into the 30-foot rear yard setback is not consistent with the intent of the 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 2 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: There are locations on the property that could accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance, and the zoning code would allow for the construction of an open deck or patio in the proposed location. The city does not find that being unable to construct a preferred improvement in a preferred location constitutes a practical difficulty. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: While the lot has a substandard depth of 100 feet, it does provide a 40-foot deep building pad which is sufficient to accommodate a single-family home and typical accessory uses. The plight of the landowner is created by the landowner’s desired location for and design of the accessory structure. A different location or use of an open porch would remove the need for the variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. Multiple properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non- conforming uses. The addition of a screened porch will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-16, dated October 15, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 6-foot rear yard setback variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of October, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-16 832 woodhill drive var\findings of fact and decision 832 woodhill drive (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Noreen Hoft for a 6-foot rear setback variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-16. On October 15, 2019, 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: Lots 2543 through 2553, inclusive, Carver Beach 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 zoning code establishes minimum rear yard setbacks to provide greenspace and separation between neighboring primary structures. The zoning code also allows for typical accessory uses such as decks and porches and allows open decks and patios to encroach up to 5 feet into required rear yard setbacks. The proposed screened porch would only extend 6 feet into the required rear yard, with the majority of the structure being located in an area permitted by the zoning code. The presence of vegetation between the applicant’s property and the neighboring structures will minimize its potential impact on the neighboring properties and will help maintain a sense of separation. Permitting the construction of a screened porch partially within the rear yard setback would be consistent with the intent of the 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 2 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 proposed size and location of the screened porch are both reasonable, and screened porches are typical uses within the RSF district. The proposed encroachment into the required rear yard setback is similar to what an open deck would be entitled to; however, the zoning code does not extend this encroachment to enclosed decks. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The lot has a substandard depth of only 100 feet that prevents the applicant from having enough buildable area to locate the screened porch outside of the rear setback. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. Multiple properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non- conforming uses. The addition of a screened porch will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-16, dated October 15, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screened porch, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 3. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject 3 property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of October, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-16 832 woodhill drive var\findings of fact and decision 832 woodhill drive (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-16 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot rear setback variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lots 2543 through 2553, inclusive, Carver Beach. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 3. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 2 Dated: October 15, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-16 832 woodhill drive var\variance document 19-16.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard CITY On CHkNHASSNMailingAddress-P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317it rL Phone: (952) 227-1300/Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICAT IONSFOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW it - Ia 1t _ ,a_ Submittal Date: Q 13 I11 PC Date: i i cj CC Date: let=lat- I g 60-Day Review Date: i<f 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 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 El Use Permit (IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 150 Final Plat 700 In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*CI All All Others 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 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ID Zoning Appeal 100 thousand square feet) Include number of existing employees: CI Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 500 Include number of new employees: Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Plus $5 per dwelling unit (units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Er Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre-application meeting) 3 per address Cs- addresses) Er Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) 50 per document Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement Vacation 12-Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)Easements ( easements) Deeds TOTAL FEE: Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: 1n(vc>dh, 1i) Property Address or Location: 3 N o`'ci I-1;11 cJe C.'Q'n kt 55Gi'' Parcel#: Z5". 160 1130 Legal Description: l- s .,( - " -A n- _ .3 I ' . A 2iv' x 'cc' Total Acreage:Wetlands Present? Yes R'No f c5-1-0 evil ?a*0 Present Zoning: Select One Requested Zoning: Select One Present Land Use Designation: Select One Requested Land Use Designation: SeleQJ F CHANHASSEN Existing Use of Property: r'ZQ-s ,d et1+14..1 RECEIVED Check box if separate narrative is attached. SEP 1 3 2019 SCANNED CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 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: ore n ' gait Contact: jam(..- Address: 3.3z kr-,,td 1/.// vi Phone: 9 ,Z - 9f /- cp /...P City/State/Zip: e..1)6 7 A ass n 712/ 7 3/7 sell: 6/.4 - 9140 -404.2 Email:nh`f t ems,f th 1;i k. is t Fax: it7,0 Signature: L. Date: Pr- This S tLy`G application must 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 o staff reports? Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: Email E Mailed Paper Copy Name: Applicant Via: Email E 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 digitallcopytothecityforprocessing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM I SUBMIT FORM) City of Chanhassen Community Development Department Section 5 Variance Application Responses: 832 Wood Hill Drive Septembet 73, 2079 {61 Written Justificatlon a. Variances shall only be permltted when they are ln harmony wlth the general purposes and intent of this Chapter (Section 20-58) and when the varlances are consistent wlth the comprehensive plan. Harmony of intent without the Section detail is difficult at this point. What we can say is that the deign will be in harmony with the Carver Beach environment and will blend-in with its surroundings. ln chanhassen we espouse to be "A community for Life. . . Providing for today and planning for tomorrow." Our variance application is a request to give my husband and I a better life in Chanhassen, providing for today so that while my husband is able we can enioy the outdoor space, and planning for tomorrow when he is less able to access it on his own. b. When there are practical difficuhies in complying wit r the zoning ordinance. "Practical dfficultes'as used in the connection with fanting the varianoe, meaning the prop€rtY owner proposes to u3e the property ln a reasonable manner not permltted by this chapter. Our decision to build a screened deck is based on my husband, Mike's disability. He has Huntington's Disease, which is a neuro-degenerative disorder that is incurable and fatal. we will both soon be homebound as the disease progresses and Mike loses more cognition and motor control. From the Huntington's Diseose Society ol Americo (HDSA) website (yutut-hc!79.919 ): Huntington's diseose (HD) is o fatol genetic disotder that couses the progressive breakdown of nerve cells in the broin. lt deteriorotes o person's physicol ond mental abilities usuolly during their prime working years ond hos no cure. The life expectancy from the onset of this disease is estimated at 15-20 years. Based on the stages of decline Mike is currently using a walker, but will soon need a wheel chair. I want to be his Caregiver for as long as possible and keep him at home. We need to find new ways to enjoy living in our home and experiencing the beautiful outdoor environment that Wood Hill Drive offers. Mike is a "country boy''from Kansas and loves the hawks, owls, deer, turkey and fox that we have on The Hill. The ease of access to the screened deck from our dining area sliding glass doors will make those experiences more accessible to him and to us. What is our practical difficulty basis for the variance? - Placing the screened deck roofed entrance at our sliding glass doors with a 6.5' depth will easily allow Mike to wheel himself out the door directly into the protected space. Our sliding doors could also stay open without letting insects into the house allowing more time for egress, which is one of the primary interests we have in screening- in the space. He would also only need to wheel himself six feet into the large screened area.rrv rrrt rqrEL ""''"""trii br cHANHASSEN RECEIVED sEP 13 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DETT Other practicality - Our house is built on a significant slope of the hill and immediately after we purchased it, we leveled the back yard into two terraces. Therefore, the area in which the submitted design is placed is level ground. Any other placement would involve water flow that could cause erosion of the footings or that we change the grade or find other structural solutions that would potentially add significant cost (also references the justification criteria in section C below). lf we moved the 12 X 12 screened deck to the East side of the house, which Bob Generous suggested as an alternate location because it would not infringe on setbacks, the screened deck would be placed in front of a 3-pane 8' X 5' casement window in our living room. That placement would both block our view of the woods and would restrict sunlight into our home from what is a very private outdoor view into the canopy of our trees. Also, my husband would need to push himself further in an unprotected space to get to the screened deck area. Building the deck on a solid wall on the North side that has no widows in the Living Room is the most practical spot. c, That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economlc considerations alone. The cost of this project is over 550,000 because we made decisions for a high-quality design using composite deck materials that will perform well in our sometimes extreme weather conditions. The shed roof will be shingled with the same brand and style as our current house roof. The railings and posts will be of the same color clad aluminum as our current exterior windows. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landosmer. We did not build this house, 832 Wood Hill Drive, however, we were the first occupants. The person who bought the property and started to construst the house was foreclosed in 1989. The mortgage lender was forced to finish the build as architecturally designed and we purchased it in December 1990. We did not choose the placement of the structure with the potential setback encroachment, which was inherent in the design should anyone want to build a deck r an addition. Even thouSh an open deck could be approved with the 5" allowance it is not workable for us. e. The variance, lf granted will not alter the essential character ofthe locality. The two neighbors to our North both have decks. Our neighbors on the West and East both have patios. Our screened deck is set into the woods and will primarily be hidden by the canopies in the Spring and Summer with manimal impact on our closest neighbors' outdoor environments f. varlances will be granted for earth sheltered construcdon as detined ln Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, suMivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. This structure is not earth sheltered. +o.rt(g- -rl.o11-.r ftr*- o'e/ * ----{o\=FAF9 cD (.o-FS: E- sFs $(J ==(-) \<iI (!L i[/d' TJ ^d -o{ a -9f) :,U9 \ I .\- \ .-o' '--- q & a ,2+ !-! { Ct s E --s ,: o =*+ --o o,6] | - -r -a, -- - -'9'.u - o (+; 81fit1{x;:r.x (1 ia ! (,() YE] )/IIIIIIIIII I : I I t I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ ..1.J..1r.I\io*rl,r l'i r! ,' L'[. o)e(\l 6a o- LlJ<t) zUTct)U)*o =s<= 6ts ECE F6 o\ Ii: *rn.{r{. I EILot5..El{OEAC B'rofi oEtr ..1 ,.8sLal #r,I TE .k de oiq E5.P x'a ir5Et89to LrOIcra BI =Iss ir+t, H.lal .e1 TE99 To @-g E: BEok.o5t+,+rE .lJOcc)r{P.hoo>fH oo*? uotiii6d<t BEooooCE :t:+rcJt<!, t H3E8q >aJOE.d <q<P CJ6.3 a. *lr rlot-r o o 6.ia >o..1oo F{ +l(,ctr,; -oRCLi t{N."6sa<to.'hdE*T fn 'd (t<To s Y:t .4.nJIi:$?i.ste soIoh o\Eq oo eiqtql 3 aIot Eab oi t\,1 o N 0 ! E o(o oi N 1..ts Eoo t{o 0).!.!, a ohH ao o oa o e .A d tr{ 3ql co Arl d' ,', {5.T-- 3BH 8.8rl -d AFt I I 7f.'.9i.' ("\ 'El rr E3: \o frj,4. E (i :f! Cl t'i.r xl ,tt i l?t -tr) I oo*ao5l{oq:E b -l t{a (o{I \N be99ZZ99Z t99Z o ogEe 'o o.je' z? 6 eb9z o 6U ): 8'i o -o b b o e. .Ftx trl a bbg? o r 9b c).1o dE t{ B a b o 'Z troE'ct{otrot}.a,I;II,IIII 1\:tElli-'tiY1 tro(9=.=edz.a2- = (-) ol,dt}{kta @aog E E :i. +' d .___!o= ,r o o a o a \loNls\]gY)',tIIi I I I db-airrSI$t .-ialcr.D t----+n..vI1-!3'f:96-r- I I .! .? l8 !i .j: ta t8 BaE' irr it -'gli! flb tt . ..,,'.1 ,l:F; r.'la ,,o'oi'.i - '...': ri - :r: 9: ,' j,, : -,^'.,.;>-.j -ts. ,,.:.;..: I i.a:,1'1tq': t{.i : :.,1,,:1:,.,,...:| t_.'r,.: ..,: :. i I , €99e trilro c9ct't - ==c{26ad 42, "-- A<r) -.1.J otuz LUouJ cc zlII.l)a4 z4 (J LLo -o I t E ? P$l I , 5 I 5t T B t 3 E a a 3 lr z99Z o99Z I 992o \ I ----*o ai 8 ? :' - l E j ,! I tt ! a ! aI E aa aI e I I T 7 t I I E n E 7 I E t tI .3 3 7 EF t , 3 t t,5 .r E : 4 , i t .9t ! .? E! f 6, It tb ti , +*ca3 Rt i ?nie i! ii{ c,(:j !i t igz_.r.-1--iq -'__'?"'_ t: 5r tlT* p 3 a fi> e5 ld CE E=;t Qaot I I T t LIa \: l--Ii I t- r f- t-- t- t-t l- It L l_ L I { a I I a I I.ttrol I I I l{ L- l''it, I al I }-,rgsF !!. e! ,H 62 aGoe:tCEldzF!.!t-|(aE}-tI aolult.''(ltJ,Cl,EFra Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Jason Wedel, Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Charlie Burke, Streets Superintendent Date: 10/3/2019 Re: Rear Yard Setback Variance at 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case 2019-16 The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 832 Woodhill Drive. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance at 832 Woodhill Drive can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The property is located within the Carver Beach subdivision and has no drainage and utility easements recorded or platted on the property. 4. No improvements to the existing water or sanitary sewer services is proposed at this time, and the property is served by a conforming driveway access off Woodhill Drive. 5. The survey provided appears to be from a building permit submittal from 2004. The survey used for the 2004 submittal has a certificate of survey dated from the 1980s. This dates the survey being used on the provided plans to be over 30 years old and without an original signature (required under City Ordinances Sec. 7-19). As it is probable there have been changes to the property that aren’t reflected on the older survey (e.g. public utilities, structures, elevations, etc.), and as it does not meet the requirements of Sec. 7-19, an updated survey must be submitted for review in conjunction with the plan submittal for permits. See condition 1. 6. The applicant is proposing the installation of a deck on the north side of the existing home which triggered the variance request for rear yard setbacks. The installation and construction of the proposed deck off the home would bring the structure closer to an existing public storm sewer pipe. The storm sewer pipe generally bisects the west portion of the property from north to south. There is also a storm sewer manhole located on the northwest portion of the property. Currently there are no easements for the purpose of maintenance and repair over this existing storm sewer pipe and manhole. In order to protect and maintain this public utility in perpetuity, an easement must be recorded over it. See condition 2. Proposed Conditions 1. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 2. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, October 15, 2019 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated October 1, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their October 1, 2019 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated October 1, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated October 1, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 2019 Acting Chairman Randall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; and Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Brian Timm 6860 Lotus Trail Randy Rutledge 680 Carver Beach Road PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVER AND FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 690 CARVER BEACH ROAD. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on the location and size of the rain garden. Acting Chairman Randall called the public hearing to order. Randy Rutledge, 680 Carver Beach Road expressed concerns with damage to trees located north and south of this property, how the rain garden is going to operate before requesting a 5 year maintenance plan insuring the health of the trees to the north and south. He also expressed concerns with the height of the building not fitting in with the character of the neighborhood. Acting Chair Randall closed the public hearing. After comments from commission members the following motion was made. McGonagill moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5 foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a single family home, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive a demolition permit prior to removing the existing structures. Planning Commission Summary – October 1, 2019 2 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Construction traffic and parking cannot block emergency response road access. 5. The applicant must install a rain garden. The rain garden’s design and location must be approved by the city’s Engineering Department. 6. Eaves may encroach up to an additional 24 inches into the required front yard setback, as shown on the submitted plan. 7. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan which indicates the height of the retaining wall (top of wall and bottom of wall elevations). Retaining walls shall be design in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 20-1025. 8. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed or preserved. All preserved trees in the rear yard must be protected by fencing during construction. 9. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree in the front yard is present at the end of construction. 10. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at 690 Carver Beach Road around the neighboring oak to the south 11. Tree branches from neighboring trees shall be properly pruned by a certified arborist before demolition activities begin. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 17, 2019 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. MacKenzie Walters provided an update on action taken by the City Council at their September 23, 2019 meeting and items scheduled for upcoming meetings. Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0 The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2019 Acting Chairman Randall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; and Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Brian Timm 6860 Lotus Trail Randy Rutledge 680 Carver Beach Road PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVER AND FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 690 CARVER BEACH ROAD. Randall: MacKenzie do you want to tell us about it? Walters: Yep absolutely. So this is Planning Case 2019-14. This will be going, this will be handled here tonight. If appealed it would go to the City Council on October 28, 2019 for a final determination. The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance to facilitate the construction of a single family home at 690 Carver Beach Road. So the area is zoned Residential Single Family. It’s located in the shoreland overlay district. What this means is the lot, the minimum lot size for this district is typically 15,000 square feet. It has a 30 foot front and rear setback. 10 foot side yard setback and is limited to 25 percent impervious surface coverage. The parcel in question is a sub-standard lot with only 6,000 square feet of lot area. It currently has 21 percent lot cover based on a survey submitted by the applicant. It has a non-conforming 6.7 foot side yard setback here. Front yard setback is currently a non-conforming 15.3 feet and then there’s currently a garage that is about 1 foot over the neighbor’s property line to the south. It does meet the required 30 foot rear setback however. This graphic here shows where the buildable area would be if all setbacks were met and the area in red is the existing structures. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing home and construct a new single family home. The footprint of that home is shown here in green. I have the porch in blue and then walkway and driveway in gray. As mentioned to do this they would need a 5 foot front yard setback variance and then they’d be going to about 34 percent lot cover Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 2 so they’d need a 9 percent lot cover variance. The main justification for this is the small size of the lot. At 6,000 square feet it is not actually possible to construct a new home that meets the minimum requirements of the city code without a lot cover variance. Because they recognize that 9 percent lot cover is substantially above 25 they are proposing a rain garden to help mitigate some of the impervious surface and they do know that this project would bring the side yards into compliance as well as reduce the existing non-conformity of the front yard by increasing the front yard setback by 10 feet. They also noted that a very similar variance was approved for the property immediately behind this property. In 2001 the City granted that property a 5 ½ foot front setback variance, a 7 foot side yard variance and an 11 foot lot cover variance so, and that was also for a 6,000 square foot lot. So they noted that it was consistent with what had previously been granted in the area. We have been contacted by 2 residents. One in favor sent an email which I believe we, you have in front of you. They stated that the property in it’s current state is an eye sore and they feel that a new home would be a huge improvement for the area. We did have a resident contact us with concerns. They were particularly concerned with the impact of the trees on the neighboring properties. They noted that the construction activities would likely cause some damage to the root structure of the trees that are on the neighboring properties and that likely trimming would need to be done which could damage the trees and the branches for the overhangs. They felt the building was too massive and that two stories would be out of place next to the neighboring one story houses. They had concerns about the amount of lot cover proposed and also concerns about grading and elevations. We had the Environmental Resources Coordinator look over the trees, and I actually went out to the site with her. She believes that with good pruning, professionally done and effective tree preservation there isn’t a serious risk to the neighboring trees. Her memo’s included in your staff report as well as the conditions she would like to place on the variance in order to protect those trees. Regarding the building’s height, it is under the maximum height permitted by the zoning code so it is a by rights in regards to the height. The absolutely amount of proposed lot cover, while staff acknowledges 34 percent is quite a bit larger than 29 percent. In absolute terms you’re looking at about 2,000 square feet of lot cover which is a pretty small footprint for a home and garage and we do note that a rain garden will hopefully help mitigate some of that runoff. Regarding the grading, the final grading and elevations are something we’ll review as part of the building permit process if the variance is granted and that’s when engineering will scrutinize and that will be expected to be at final level. Right now this is to be considered to be preliminary. So I mostly touched on these points in my previous comments but staff’s assessment of the request is that it’s not possible to construct a single family home on this property without a variance. Therefore the question is what is a reasonable variance. Staff looked it over. Proposed house size is about a 2,000 square foot living area. Average house size in the U.S. is about 2,600 square feet so it’s certainly not an excessively sized home. Code requires a minimum 2 car garage as well as minimum footprints. Again this isn’t significantly beyond those minimums. One of the reasons why the applicant proposed reducing the front yard by 5 feet was because that cuts about 1 ½ percent off the impervious coverage. It’s a little bit of a balancing act. The further you push the house back on the property the more lot cover you end up with. Staff feels this does a good job of balancing setback and lot cover. Staff does appreciate that one non- conforming setback is being reduced and that two have been removed and brought into Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 3 compliance with code and staff notes this less extensive than the variance that was granted to the neighboring property for the construction of a new home. For these reasons staff recommends approval and I’ll be happy to take any questions you have at this time. McGonagill: MacKenzie I have one question on the drawing. Where’s the rain garden going? Walters: Yep so it’s not on the survey there. I believe the proposed location is in this quadrant where we have the water moving along the side to hopefully capture that before it hits the road. The design and final location of the rain garden would be subject to approval by the City’s Water Resources Coordinator and engineering department but I believe that’s the location we discussed with the applicant. McGonagill: And the applicant’s talking about a professionally designed rain garden. Something that would be adequately designed with the drainage. French drains, etcetera to bring the water in there and try to retain it long enough. Walters: The requirement for the condition of the variance as staff has written is that it be designed and approved by the engineering department so it would have to meet our standards and we’d have to believe it would work as intended for it to meet the condition. McGonagill: So just one final question on that rain garden MacKenzie. Do you happen to have a general square foot rain garden? I’m just, I’m trying to put it in context with some that I’ve worked around and been around. Walters: Yep to be honest I don’t believe that’s been determined. It was something the applicant expressed a willingness to do. We placed it as a condition. I don’t believe they’ve met with the Water Resources Coordinator to discuss size or actual details of construction. McGonagill: Okay. And there’s going to be a retaining wall on that bottom, what I call the bottom of the lot. Is that what that is? Walters: Yeah there’d be a retaining wall here on the south as well as a retaining wall here on the north with a gap. To facilitate the stairs and walkway. McGonagill: Okay so the driveway would actually be down and the retaining wall would be, okay. Got it. Thank you MacKenzie. Randall: Any further questions for staff? Alright I guess we’ll move onto the applicant. The applicant want to come forward? Adam Loken’s Dad: Good evening. Thank you council members. I am Adam’s dad. He’s on his honeymoon in Italy. We want to get this project going because you know what comes next. So I’m willing to answer any questions. I’m pretty familiar with the property and can answer Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 4 any questions you might have. His goal today is to for sure get the variance so he can start his demolition permit before frost and get his basement in. McGonagill: Why don’t you just take us through why you ended up with the design that he did? Adam Loken’s Dad: I’m sorry. McGonagill: Could you just take us through quickly why he ended up with the design he did. His thought process for the house. Adam Loken’s Dad: Well he wanted to remodel about 1927 cabin and I, we had to have hazmat suits to get in there and I just convinced him all you’re going to have is a remodeled 1927 cabin so he wanted to move forward and went through a pretty extensive design process with a couple different draftsmen and architects to find something that fit. Kind of like your Lake Minnetonka 50 foot lots. You want to do something stacked and tucked under and that’s what his process was to try to come up with a design. McGonagill: So he, basically what he did in order to make it conforming he brought it, made it narrow but that forced him to go up. Adam Loken’s Dad: Yeah. The garage he pretty much had to eliminate that because it was on the neighbor’s property and then to get anything of value to match the neighborhood he needed to do something of a nicer design with a two story tuck under and I think he’s put that together. McGonagill: Okay, thank you sir. Adam Loken’s Dad: I think it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and certainly a better tax advantage for the City. Reeder: What happens to the, there’s a…in front of the house now. Is that gone? Adam Loken’s Dad: That would have to be cut away for the tuck under garage. Reeder: And the trees are gone too? Adam Loken’s Dad: Yes. Reeder: Alright. Adam Loken’s Dad: And they are beautiful. I just went there. They’re beautiful maples but to try to get a drive that comes off of the road that works it’s got to be cut down. Reeder: So the driveway come in at street level then pretty much? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 5 Adam Loken’s Dad: Yes. Yes. Reeder: Okay. Randall: Any other questions? Alright seeing none sir, we’ll have the public come up and speak. Adam Loken’s Dad: Okay great, thank you. Randall: Thank you. Adam Loken’s Dad: Mike did you just work at Superior Plating? McGonagill: No sir. Adam Loken’s Dad: Okay. There was a Mike McGonagill that was part owner there. McGonagill: Probably better looking. Randall: Alright, we’ll open this up for the public hearing. You’re welcomed to approach and state your name and your address and any comments that you have regarding the proposed variance. Good evening sir. Randy Rutledge: Good evening. My name is Randy Rutledge. I’m the property owner at 680 Carver Beach Road. I’m the property adjacent to the south side of the proposed project. I had some, well concerns I guess over this, over the proposed project one of which was obviously the trees. I did make a call to staff. I believe I spoke to in regards to that and after reading the, Jill Sinclair’s memo, totally agree with the concerns that she put forth. You know the heavy equipment driving on the roots. All of the compaction. The fill. The cutting of the roots and then if we don’t manage to kill the tree on the underside then we’re looking at arborist costs to then trim the trees literally straight up. Both the north and the south side trees will be extremely affected both of which are well over 100 year old trees. That’s a major concern of I guess myself causing an undue hardship long term here because most of those trees are not going to show any damage or immediate response to the damage caused by the construction for at least 2 years and I’ve been told somewhere between 2 and 5 by most arborists I spoke to and really what I guess I you know am concerned about is the water retention/rain garden being not shown. Grading plans not submitted how he’s going to handle all the water on the property. That’s going to be a tough one when he’s trying to stick it behind a retaining wall. I’m not quite sure how he’s going to do that and the major one for me is the long term care and maintenance of these trees and possibly removal. Rich to the north and myself would be both impacted and have an undue hardship on the basis of financial removal of these trees and from the impact of the construction. And I guess I’m looking, you know I’m not opposed to obviously a new house going in there but I guess I’d Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 6 you know to say that the tree is going to be fine for the limited access to the rear of the property as you can see I don’t know how he plans on getting all of the said rain garden, said materials, back fill equipment through that 10 foot without driving you know directly over the root structure. Now Jill Sinclair also mentioned in her memorandum that she proposed a protection ring and such around the trees. Generally that would encompass that 10 foot section that adjacent to the house to the property line. I’m not exactly sure how that’s going to be handled. That would be a major concern if that’s maintained as well as the erosion control during the course of the construction which you did mention in your recommendations. The other one, so I’m basically requesting that a maintenance plan be put in place of some sort of a 5 year or something of that nature to maintain those trees, both north and south side. If I had something like that I guess I would feel a little bit more secure in the fact that the property and the construction would be at least, you know there would be a cost to cover the removal of the tree obviously if he kills it. Both on the north and south because the north side he’s going to be putting window wells and such into that side of the property as well. Digging into the impact of that tree as well so those are my two major points of concern and I don’t know if you can impose that 5 year maintenance plan to cover all those trees long term. If that’s even possible but that’s kind of what I’m looking for because I can, I don’t know exactly how he plans on doing it or how that logistically could take place to accomplish the grading that would need to be done to establish that rain garden or said rain garden, which we don’t know where it’s at or how it’s going to be constructed or how it’s going to handle that amount of water. Now in this area, been there for quite a few years you know and it handles a lot of water coming down through those, those neighborhoods as I’m sure you guys are well aware so. I guess those are my only requests or only considerations I guess I would ask the council to, the commission to take into. McGonagill: Before you sit down Mr. Chairman may I ask a question? Randall: Sure, go ahead. McGonagill: Can you show me on the drawing where the tree’s he’s talking about are? Walters: Sorry that mic was off. My recollection was that the one was right around here was a large honey locust and I believe the red oak was there but I could be off because they are not shown on the survey. McGonagill: I think they could show it on the overhead. Randy Rutledge: Can you do that? Walters: Oh yeah we got a document camera. McGonagill: On paper yes. Walters: Put it on there sir. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 7 McGonagill: Very good, thank you. So my question is these trees, I’m trying to figure out who’s property they’re on to start with so why don’t you. Randy Rutledge: Rich is to the north and they’re. McGonagill: Rich is Mr. Who? Randy Rutledge: I don’t, I can’t remember Rich’s last name. McGonagill: Okay. Randy Rutledge: It’s right, that tree right up here. McGonagill: Okay and your property is to the south? Randy Rutledge: This is the red oak. McGonagill: And you’re mister? Randy Rutledge: Randy Rutledge. McGonagill: Mr. Rutledge, okay thank you Mr. Rutledge. Reeder: Is that a retaining wall in front of that tree? The height differentiation there of 2-3 feet isn’t there? Randy Rutledge: No it’s about one foot. Reeder: Okay. Randall: So do you have issues with water coming into your yard now because I see the street photo of it and it looks like there’s like a downward slope down to where your house is. Randy Rutledge: Actually there was a, well it’s kind of gotten troughed. Randall: Yep. Randy Rutledge: So we troughed it right down the property line. Randall: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 8 Randy Rutledge: So that’s currently where the water flow is going and it’s basically directly down from the rear all the way down. Randall: Okay. McGonagill: And so you’ve had, if I may. If the garage was actually on your property if I recall right from the original drawing to the south. Randy Rutledge: Correct. McGonagill: And so it was dumping I guess looking at the slope of the garage it was probably dumping water on your as well right? Randy Rutledge: Correct. McGonagill: So getting that out of the way should help the water. Randy Rutledge: The water situation yes. I’m just kind of curious as to how he plans on using a retaining wall at the garage side while maintaining a rain garden. Those two usually don’t go together too well but it can be done. But I guess my more, the biggest concern is the tree, or trees. Mine in particular because if he’s got to run that equipment I don’t know how he’s going to get to the back yard conceivably within the, because you know they’ll resize the foundation to accommodate the foundation installation and you’re still going to need equipment around the facility, or around the house. Reeder: How far off your property line is your tree? Randy Rutledge: About 3 ½ feet. Maybe 4. McGonagill: And the two trees in the front will have to come out MacKenzie said? Randy Rutledge: Yeah those would be gone. Those are the two there, which are really nice trees so I’m trying to I guess put forth a concern I guess of trying to maintain at least some of the old growth trees in the neighborhood. Adam Loken’s Dad: Randy if I might interrupt. What kind of tree is that? Is that a maple? Randy Rutledge: Red oak. Adam Loken’s Dad: Oak so. So they have a 10 foot root base in that wouldn’t affect it if it doesn’t work good. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 9 Randy Rutledge: No. According to Jill Sinclair, I don’t know if you read that memorandum that she put out, no the root structure does not do well under equipment. Adam Loken’s Dad: And knowing that the south setback is in conformity. I’m just trying, I’m trying to think of the construction. I’m a contractor and I’m trying to think of the construction starting on the northeast and coming around and minimalizing less effect you know. Randy Rutledge: The compaction. Adam Loken’s Dad: The root damage and I’m sure Adam would be more than willing to put a 30 foot fence around that root ball or root barrier. I think 30 foot is protective of that? Randy Rutledge: It would be but you don’t have that from the edge of the construction. The corner of the construction of the building to the base of the. Adam Loken’s Dad: It’s only 10 feet. Randy Rutledge: It’s 10 feet. So that’s my major concern and that’s why I’m asking for the insurance policy basically on the tree as long as, as well as maintenance because the odds of taking this thing out and it’s probably a $3,000 tree if the construction goes and kills it. Adam Loken’s Dad: Another question would be could an arborist provide any documentation and/or research study where if you took off the branches along the north side of the tree it would minimalize the root damage? Randall: Sir, we just have this public forum. You’ve already had your chance to speak. I’m not trying to, the trees. One of the things we’re dealing with is the setback variance and I understand the trees are a concern right now. Randy Rutledge: Yes. Randall: But we’re really focused on the variances right now. Randy Rutledge: Yes. Randall: The issue of the trees is there and I think it’s been raised as a concern. Randy Rutledge: Correct. Randall: Do you have any concerns about the setback or anything like that with the variance or? Randy Rutledge: Yes. There was a concern on the front street setback. There’s multiple different ways to get to the hard cover. I know that the recommendation was to have the Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 10 consistency of the houses that was approved across the way, there was a reasoning for that because he was forced up by the swamp and the wetlands area. In this particular case I don’t see that being a really big concern and I think because of the 35, it’s basically a 35 though it wasn’t clearly called out on the plans, foot he is within the height requirements of the city but this thing’s going to look like a sheer wall when you drive down the street. It’s going to go straight up and now we’re moving it closer to the road so aesthetically that’s going to be even harder to kind of you know look at if you want to call it that. It’s not, there’s nothing soft about it. It’s literally a 35 foot straight up in the air sheer wall so that was another concern that I had. That was and as far as affecting the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Randall: Okay. Randy Rutledge: Now there’s other ways to get to the hard cover. Saying that he leaves his house the same size just moves it back, you know pervious pavers. There’s all kinds of different aspects you could address there to accommodate the hard cover. As well as there was one other aspect that was not included. It said it was going to be presented at some point is this rear deck that is not on any of the prints that was provided by the city or provided by you guys or provided by him and that would encroach onto the rear setback currently so that would have to be also something else dealt with on that one if the house were to move back so that’s another thought. But I guess the big one is the front yard hard cover because obviously it would affect the trees and more so with the larger size house. I know he’s within the setbacks but odds are that if the hard cover was observed the house would shrink most likely leaving more room for the tree but I guess that’s kind of where I’m at at the moment. Randall: Alright, thank you. Anyone else from who wishes to speak? Anyone? Alright. Alright we’ll move onto our discussion about that. Walters: Would the Chair like to close the hearing please? Randall: Yes we’ll close the hearing now. We’ll close the public hearing and move onto discussion. Go ahead. I can tell you want to talk. Undestad: Well I mean again looking at the plan it looks like they’ve done a lot of work to clean up a lot of issues that are already existing on there. You know it sounded like the main concern was the trees on here. I think that the trees were old. Obviously they’re old trees but looking at where the garage to the north sits in relation to that tree and the garage to the south in relation to that tree, I’m sure those structures were built around those trees and they’re still doing well today and my guess is if they follow Jill’s recommendations and minimize the impact around there, I just don’t know how we could put a, put anything on the homeowner to say you know if something happens to that tree you’re going to do something about it. Randall: Yep. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 11 Undestad: If something happened to that tree that has nothing to do with the homeowner so I don’t really know we could put any restrictions on that. Aside from that I think that there’s been a, for that small of a lot I think they did an outstanding job of trying to make something look nice on there and minimize the impacts that they could have done so. McGonagill: I concur with that. That you know they’ve narrowed it down. Tried to take care of all the non-conformities. Gotten a structure off of a neighbor’s property which is always a good thing to clean it up. Rain gardens do work. I have one. I have a large one and I was surprised how good it works so I’m a real supporter of those if they, they do a nice job if they’re put in professional and I’m sure they will. And you know the trees are a concern but I just, there’s no, you can’t protect everything with this and so I think it’s an improvement to the neighborhood. Reeder: I happen to live in the neighborhood about a block from this house and I think that what they’re proposing is exactly what makes sense. The point of one story houses as you know there’s one story and there’s two and three stories all over this area and they’ve been, a lot of one stories have been replaced but I think what he’s proposed here makes a lot of sense. It fits on that little lot. I think he has the right to have a house on that lot. We can’t make the lot any bigger and I think that what the proposal is fits in. It’s too bad to lose those trees in their front yard. I feel bad about that. I don’t think we can do anything as far as protecting trees on anybody else’s lot except there are requirements during construction we try to do the kind of thing he suggested. Put as much a barrier and keeping trucks off of the root area. The drip line of that tree as much as possible and I think we can require that as part of the staff approval and I think that’s all we can do. We certainly, I don’t, I’m not aware if ever required one neighbor to insure the other guy’s tree so I don’t think that’s something I’d be interested. I think it’s a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Skistad: And I would concur with all of you on everything that you said. I just have a point of order question which I don’t really need to ask. I’ll ask afterwards but I think it makes sense as well. Randall: Alright. I guess I’ll do mine. I appreciate everyone’s input on it. My thoughts on it, you know the variance, you know in these neighborhoods especially where these back in 1927 these were all small cabin lots at one time. Chanhassen’s changed since then. If people are trying to add homes that they can actually live in at the time. I would assume with your son being in Italy that he’s going to want to make the neighbors happy and try to preserve those trees as much as possible. Now that you guys know about that, that can be an issue with the contractor to try to save those trees at the time. As far as the aesthetics go, I understand that concern from people but you know it’s private property and if people want to build a house that looks like a star they can do it. To me it looks like the house is going to fit into the neighborhood and eventually there’s going to be a lot of turnover in that neighborhood where homes will come up to that standard and it’s one of those neighborhoods too which makes Chanhassen unique. That you can have a variation of houses in that neighborhood of all Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 12 different generations and they all fit in together. I’ll be in favor of the variance if someone would like to make a motion. McGonagill: Before we do that. Randall: Yeah. McGonagill: I applaud the neighbors for coming and talking openly and honestly to each other here tonight. This is the proper forum for doing that. I think you all handled, each of you all handled yourself very well and we appreciate that and I do hope as babies do come, and I hope they do to the neighborhood, that everyone will be welcomed there and so thank you all for that response for coming here tonight. I’ll make the motion sir. Randall: Go ahead. McGonagill: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5 foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a single family home subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Randall: Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Randall: Alright I have a second. All in favor of the proposed motion. McGonagill: Any further discussion? Randall: Any further discussion? Alright. So my parliamentary procedure is off a little bit alright. We’ll take a vote on it. McGonagill moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5 foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a single family home, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive a demolition permit prior to removing the existing structures. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Construction traffic and parking cannot block emergency response road access. 5. The applicant must install a rain garden. The rain garden’s design and location must be approved by the city’s Engineering Department. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 13 6. Eaves may encroach up to an additional 24 inches into the required front yard setback, as shown on the submitted plan. 7. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan which indicates the height of the retaining wall (top of wall and bottom of wall elevations). Retaining walls shall be design in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 20-1025. 8. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed or preserved. All preserved trees in the rear yard must be protected by fencing during construction. 9. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree in the front yard is present at the end of construction. 10. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at 690 Carver Beach Road around the neighboring oak to the south 11. Tree branches from neighboring trees shall be properly pruned by a certified arborist before demolition activities begin. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Randall: The motion passes for the variance. Reeder: You want to tell him when it’s going to come to the council? Randall: Well it will be coming to the council, what’s the date for that MacKenzie? Walters: So if appealed, and for the record any individual aggrieved by this decision has the right to submit an appeal in writing. There’s a 4 business day window to do that. If appealed this variance would go before the City Council on October 28th. If an appeal is not received within 4 days this would be a permanent decision and the variance would go into effect. Adam Loken’s Dad: Is that 4 days from today or before that meeting? Walters: Four days from today so if I do not receive an appeal by 4:30 Monday then it would, then a letter of approval will be sent out to the applicant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 17, 2019 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Randall: MacKenzie can we get a City Council update? Walters: You can indeed. At the Monday, September 23rd meeting the council approved the Interim Use Permit for Moon Valley that had, came before you previously and they also upheld the requested variance to replace and move a septic system for the property at 1181 Homestead Lane. So those were the two items that went before the City Council. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 14 Randall: Can you shut that door real quick? Thank you ma’am for doing that for us. Walters: Sorry, would you like me to repeat that or did it come through? Randall: Oh why don’t you go ahead and repeat it. Walters: Alright, so the first item was the Interim Use Permit for the Moon Valley gravel pit. The council approved that and then also the bluff setback variance for the septic system at 1181 Homestead Lane was also approved so those were the two action items that went before the council. Randall: Okay. Alright anything more that you need to add about that or anything coming up that we need to know about? Walters: Yep in terms of stuff coming up, next meeting there will be a rear yard setback variance request for 832 Woodhill to discuss putting a screen porch, 6 foot encroachment into the rear setback so you’ll be getting that staff report oh in a week or so. Randall: Okay. Walters: And then on November 19th there will be a bunch of code amendments so I would recommend you caffeinate yourselves because I’ve got about 14 of them in the works and it could go long. So that’s what I know of that’s coming up. Randall: Alright. Do we have any presentations at all by members of the commission? Point of order that you wanted to talk about? Skistad: I’ll ask afterwards. Randall: Okay. Alright, does anyone have anything further to add? Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0 The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim