The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Staff Report 8-17-21PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, August 17, 2021 Subject Approve a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct a Porch and Deck on Property Located at 6287 Chaska Road Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2. Prepared By Josh Storms, Community Development Intern File No: PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves an 8.3foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting an 8.3foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck to replace an existing deck and patio. They are proposing to remove several existing yard amenities including a deck, two existing patios, a stone path that crosses the west property line, and two sections of the existing driveway. They will also redesign existing retaining walls and add new landscaping to increase privacy and better direct water drainage since water currently pools along the side and back of the home. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to allow for the construction of typical backyard improvements on a property with many existing nonconformities. The applicant has noted that the house and its existing yard amenities were constructed by previous owners prior to current ordinances. They have noted that they do not have the ability to construct a 3season porch and attached deck meeting the required 30foot rear setback since the home is located 17 feet from the rear line. Additionally, they have explained that the 3season porch and deck will be in a similar location as the existing deck and patio and will not increase the property’s existing nonconforming rear yard setback. The applicant has pointed out that their project will actually reduce the property’s nonconformities by reducing the its lot cover from 26.8 percent to 24.9 percent by removing an attached rear patio with a nonconforming 6foot rear setback, and removing a walkway and retaining wall from neighboring properties. Finally, they noted that once this project is complete, the outdoor space will have less impact on neighboring properties due to the addition of vegetative screening and improvements to the property’s drainage. In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests that result in an overall reduction of a property’s nonconforming status. In this case, staff believes that while enclosing the existing deck area to create a 3season porch is an intensification of the existing nonconformity, the reduction of lot cover, removal of the rear patio with a more extensive nonconforming setback, and removal of structures from neighboring properties meets this standard. For this PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, August 17, 2021SubjectApprove a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct a Porchand Deck on Property Located at 6287 Chaska RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By Josh Storms, Community DevelopmentIntern File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves an 8.3foot rearyard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck,subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting an 8.3foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rearyard setback variance to construct a deck to replace an existing deck and patio. They are proposing to remove severalexisting yard amenities including a deck, two existing patios, a stone path that crosses the west property line, and twosections of the existing driveway. They will also redesign existing retaining walls and add new landscaping to increaseprivacy and better direct water drainage since water currently pools along the side and back of the home. The applicanthas stated that the intent of the variance is to allow for the construction of typical backyard improvements on a propertywith many existing nonconformities.The applicant has noted that the house and its existing yard amenities were constructed by previous owners prior tocurrent ordinances. They have noted that they do not have the ability to construct a 3season porch and attached deckmeeting the required 30foot rear setback since the home is located 17 feet from the rear line. Additionally, they haveexplained that the 3season porch and deck will be in a similar location as the existing deck and patio and will notincrease the property’s existing nonconforming rear yard setback. The applicant has pointed out that their project willactually reduce the property’s nonconformities by reducing the its lot cover from 26.8 percent to 24.9 percent byremoving an attached rear patio with a nonconforming 6foot rear setback, and removing a walkway and retaining wallfrom neighboring properties. Finally, they noted that once this project is complete, the outdoor space will have lessimpact on neighboring properties due to the addition of vegetative screening and improvements to the property’sdrainage.In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests that result in an overall reduction of a property’snonconforming status. In this case, staff believes that while enclosing the existing deck area to create a 3season porch is an intensification of the existing nonconformity, the reduction of lot cover, removal of the rear patio with a more extensive nonconforming setback, and removal of structures from neighboring properties meets this standard. For this reason, staff recommends approval of variance requests. APPLICANT Tim Johnson, LIVIT Site + Structure, LLC, 10799 Alberton Way, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential District LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .48 acres APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential District Section 615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks BACKGROUND On July 27, 2021 , the applicant submitted a permit for a basement finish, an additional deck on the east side of the home, residing, reroofing and removal of two sections of the driveway. None of these items require a variance and their impact on the property’s nonconforming status is noted when relevant throughout this report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve the 8.3foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 21, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) Variance Document Development Review Application Variance Request Description Survey Home Renderings Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 17, 2021 CC DATE: September 12, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: September 14, 2021 CASE #: PC 2021-17 BY: JS, MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant has requested a variance to construct a 3-season porch in the location occupied by their existing deck and to add a new rear deck in a portion of the location occupied by their existing rear patio. As part of this project the applicant will adjust the location of the existing hot tub, re- design existing retaining walls, put in new rear and side yard landscaping, remove the existing deck, remove two patios, remove a stone path that crosses the west property line, and remove two sections of the existing driveway. Since the proposed 3-season porch and rear deck do not meet setback requirements for Single-Family Residential Districts (RSF) and are intensifications of existing nonconformities, the applicant requires a variance; however, the other proposed improvements are permitted by City Code without a variance. LOCATION: 6287 Chaska Road APPLICANT: Tim Johnson LIVIT Site + Structure, LLC 10799 Alberton Way Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 OWNER: Erin Hearst 6287 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family Residential District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .48 DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves an 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 6287 Chaska Road Variance Request August 17, 2021 Page 2 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck to replace an existing deck and patio. They are proposing to remove several existing yard amenities including a deck, two existing patios, a stone path that crosses the west property line, and two sections of the existing driveway. They will also redesign existing retaining walls and add new landscaping to increase privacy and better direct water drainage since water currently pools along the side and back of the home. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to allow for the construction of typical backyard improvements on a property with many existing nonconformities. The applicant has noted that the house and its existing yard amenities were constructed by previous owners prior to current ordinances. They have noted that they do not have the ability to construct a 3-season porch and attached deck meeting the required 30-foot rear setback since the home is located 17 feet from the rear line. Additionally, they have explained that the 3-season porch and deck will be in a similar location as the existing deck and patio and will not increase the property’s existing nonconforming rear yard setback. The applicant has pointed out that their project will actually reduce the property’s nonconformities by reducing the its lot cover from 26.8 percent to 24.9 percent by removing an attached rear patio with a nonconforming 6-foot rear setback, and removing a walkway and retaining wall from neighboring properties. Finally, they noted that once this project is complete, the outdoor space will have less impact on neighboring properties due to the addition of vegetative screening and improvements to the property’s drainage. In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests that result in an overall reduction of a property’s nonconforming status. In this case, staff believes that while enclosing the existing deck area to create a 3-season porch is an intensification of the existing nonconformity, the reduction of lot cover, removal of the rear patio with a more extensive nonconforming setback, and removal of structures from neighboring properties meets this standard. For this reason, staff recommends approval of variance requests. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks BACKGROUND On July 27, 2021, the applicant submitted a permit for a basement finish, an additional deck on the east side of the home, residing, reroofing and removal of two sections of the driveway. None of these items require a variance and their impact on the property’s nonconforming status is noted when relevant throughout this report. SITE CONSTRAINTS 6287 Chaska Road Variance Request August 17, 2021 Page 3 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc Zoning Overview This property is zoned Single-Family Residential District. The zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and limits parcels to a maximum of 30% lot coverage, of which no more than 25 percent can be impervious surfaces. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 21,205 square feet with 5,674 square feet (26.8 percent) of lot cover. The existing house has a non-conforming rear yard setback of 17.4 feet and a nonconforming 9.7-foot west side yard setback. The existing patio behind the garage has a non-conforming rear yard setback of six feet and the attached deck has a nonconforming rear yard setback of 20 feet. The property has a second patio that is detached from the home and located on the southeast corner of the property which has a nonconforming rear yard setback of seven feet. The driveway has a nonconforming 0-foot side yard setback. Several of the retaining walls have nonconforming locations within the City’s drainage and utilities easement as they were built without encroachment agreements. The property also has a non- conforming stone path and retaining wall that crosses over the west property line. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code. Bluff Creek Corridor This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is not within a shoreland protection district Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located in the development site. NEIGHBORHOOD Sweiger First Addition 6287 Chaska Road Variance Request August 17, 2021 Page 4 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc The plat for this area was recorded in 1978 and consists of three lots. The three homes were constructed between 1979 and 1987. Overall, the neighborhood seems to conform to the Zoning Code although some homes and outdoor structures may not meet setback and lot cover requirements likely due to changes in City ordinance. Variances within 500 feet: 1976-2 2250 Melody Hill Road: Variance for a 3-foot setback on both side yards - Approved. 1986-12 6200 Chaska Road: A 13-foot setback variance to the required 75-foot setback for the structures on lots containing wetlands in order to construct a single-family home. - Withdrawn. 1992-5 1921 Melody Hill Circle: A 15-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a single-family home - Approved. ANALYSIS 6287 Chaska Road Variance Request August 17, 2021 Page 5 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc Rear Setback The City’s RSF District ordinance establishes a 30-foot setback from the rear property line in order for properties to provide a consistent visual aesthetic, establish rear yard areas for greenspace and recreation, and to create adequate separation between residences. While this setback plays an important role in maintaining the character and quality of this district, older properties can have lot configurations or pre-existing home placements that make it difficult to construct improvements outside of this setback. In these cases, the City examines the neighborhood context and the extent of the property’s existing nonconformities in order to determine if granting a rear yard setback variance would negatively impact adjacent properties or undermine the intent of the ordinance. The applicant’s property has four existing encroachments into the 30-foot rear yard setback. The house has a rear yard setback of 17.4 feet and the existing deck has a rear yard setback of 20 feet. The property has a non-conforming patio located behind the garage that is six feet from the rear lot line and an additional detached patio located on the southeast corner of the lot that is also seven feet from the rear property line. Staff believes all of the encroachments are longstanding and represent legal nonconformities. The applicant is proposing to remove these existing nonconformities and replace them with a 3-season porch with a 21.7 foot rear yard setback and a deck with a 17-foot rear yard setback. Since the applicant is proposing replacing existing nonconformities, the intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance is important in determining the appropriateness of granting a variance. Section 20-71 of the City Code explains the intent of the nonconforming use ordinance as: The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any nonconforming use, building or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Subsequent sections of the City’s non-conforming use ordinance permit the continuation, replacement and maintenance and improvement, but not expansion of nonconforming uses, Sec. 20- 72(a), and require that additions to nonconforming single-family dwellings meet setback 6287 Chaska Road Variance Request August 17, 2021 Page 6 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc requirements, Sec 20-72 (d). When evaluating variance requests for non-conforming homes, staff examines the extent to which the requested variance deviates from the stated intent and provisions of the nonconforming use ordinance and attempts to balance this with the variance finding’s practical difficulties and reasonable use standards. Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment that the home’s nonconforming 17.4-foot rear yard setback does not allow for the construction of typical rear yard improvements such as a deck and porch within the bounds established by City Code. Since the existing deck and patio already encroach into the setback, the primary concern is if the applicant’s proposal unreasonably increases the nonconformity. While replacing the existing deck with a 3-season porch technically intensifies the nonconformity by enclosing a previously open structure, the applicant’s proposal does not extend any closer to the rear lot line than the existing deck. In the case of the new proposed deck, the applicant is actually replacing an impervious patio with a 6-foot rear yard setback with a pervious deck with a 17-foot rear yard setback, an overall reduction to the nonconformity. Furthermore the applicant is also proposing to remove other nonconformities including the detached rear patio, two sections of the driveway, and a stone path that crosses the west property line. These changes will bring the property to just under 25 percent lot cover, eliminating another nonconformity. The applicant is also proposing new landscaping which will provide screening between the new structures and neighboring properties. This increased screening combined with the relative placement of the neighboring homes means that the applicant’s requested rear yard setback variance should not negatively impact the neighborhood aesthetic. Regarding the rear yard setback’s intent to provide rear yard recreational areas and greenspace, the existing placement of the home and topography of the rear yard mean that the property cannot have a traditional open rear yard. This atypical configuration means that the homeowner must rely on amenities near the home, such as the proposed porch and deck for the enjoyment of the yard. For the above reasons, staff believes that the applicant’s proposal results in an overall reduction of the property’s nonconformities and that the requested variances are reasonable and the result of practical difficulties caused by the siting of the home. Given this, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant the requested rear yard setback variances. Retaining Walls 6287 Chaska Road Variance Request August 17, 2021 Page 7 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc While the applicant’s proposed modifications to the property’s retaining walls does not require a variance, staff feels it is important to note that the applicant will need to apply for and receive a building permit before beginning construction. An encroachment agreement must also be obtained if the remodeled retaining walls are located within the City’s drainage and utility easements. Finally, retaining walls (if present) that are more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Impact on Neighborhood The surrounding homes are screened from the applicant’s residence by a mix of vegetation and fencing, and the applicant is proposing additional landscaping to provide an additional visual barrier. Due to the atypical configuration of the property to the applicant’s rear yard, the rear neighbor’s residence is setback approximately 84 feet from the applicant’s rear yard lot line. This creates a larger separation than the 60-foot minimum that would be present between two typical RSF lots, both observing the required 30-foot rear yard setback. Given the relative position of the neighboring homes, the large amount of screening present, and the fact that the applicant is not requesting a reduction to the existing nonconforming setback, staff does not believe that granting the variance would negatively impact the surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve the 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 21, 2021. ATTACHMENTS 1 Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) 2. Variance Document (Approval) 3. Development Review Application 4. Variance Request Description 5. Survey 6. Home Renderings 7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Tim Johnson for a variance to construct a 3-season porch and deck at 6287 Chaska Road. On August 17, 2021, 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 as Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density Use. 3. The legal description of the property: Lot 2, Block 1, Sweiger First Addition. 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: It is the intent of the City’s Nonconforming Ordinance to reduce the extent of existing nonconformities and bring properties closer to complying with City Code. It is also the intent of the City’s Non conforming Ordinance to permit the continuation, replacement, maintenance and improvement but not expansion of nonconforming uses as well as requiring that additions to nonconforming single-family dwellings meet setback requirements. In this case, the applicant’s proposal includes replacing an existing deck with a 3- season porch with an 8.3-foot rear yard setback. While this replacement is technically intensifying the nonconformity by enclosing a previously open structure, the proposed porch will not extend any closer to the rear lot line than the existing deck. The applicant’s proposal also includes replacing an existing impervious patio with a rear yard setback of six feet, with a brand new pervious deck with a rear yard setback of 17 feet, resulting in an overall reduction to the nonconformity. The applicant is also proposing to remove other nonconformities including the detached rear patio and stone path that crosses the west property line bringing the lot coverage to 25 percent and eliminating a nonconformity. Given that it is the intent of the City Code to allow the owners of nonconforming properties opportunities to make reasonable changes to their property, granting a variance to permit thoughtfully designed improvements that reduce and remove numerous nonconforming elements is in line with the intent of the City Code and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The applicant’s proposal to construct a 379-square foot 3-season porch with an attached deck is reasonable given that both are typical amenities for a single-family home. The existing deck and patio’s nonconforming placement within the property’s rear yard prevent any alteration that is considered an intensification of the existing nonconformity. Due to the home’s location partially within the required rear yard setback, the applicant cannot construct the proposed improvements without a variance. 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 plight of the landowner is due to pre-existing conditions on the property, including the nonconforming location of the house, the existing deck, stone pathway, and existing patios. All of these conditions were present on the property prior to the owner purchasing the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Sweiger First Addition is a small, older neighborhood with properties that seem to conform to the Zoning Code although some homes and outdoor structures may not meet setback and lot cover requirements likely due to changes in City Ordinance. The applicant’s proposed improvements will not encroach further into the rear yard than the replaced nonconforming structures. The proposed 3-season porch and new deck will have no visual impact as the property is surrounded by a mix of vegetation and fencing. The applicant is proposing additional landscaping to provide additional screening. Furthermore, the rear neighbor’s residence has a setback of 84 feet from the owner’s rear lot line, creating a separation larger than the 60-foot minimum that would be present between two regular RSF homes observing the required 30-foot rear yard setback. 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 #2021-17, prepared by Joshua Storms, et al. is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance permitting an 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck, subject to the following conditions: a. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. b. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 21, 2021. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of August, 2021. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\findings of fact_final.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2021-17 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 an 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Sweiger First Addition. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 21, 2021. 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: August 17, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, 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\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\variance document 21-17.docx {s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1100 I Fax: (952\ 227-1110 Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refer to tlrF- appropiate Applicatirn Clpcklist tot required submittal inlomatbn that must ad:ronpany this applbation) E Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 E Subdivision (SUB) E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... S100 E create 3 lots or less ! Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-Family Residence ..... E ntt otners...... ............... $325 ............... $42s tr tr! Create over 3 lots...-.................( lots) Metes & Bounds (2 lots)........... Consolidate Lots........-.............. E lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325! Ailothers...... ......................$425 E Rezoning (REZ) E Planned Unit Development (PUD)...-.............. $750E Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100E Att Others...... ......................$500 E Sign Plan Review................ ....... $150 E Site Ptan Review (SPR) E Administrative ..................... $100E Commercial/lndustrial Districts. .... ... ...... ... ... . .. $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet) 'lnclude number of exrsliaq emplgyees: 'lnclude number of Agg employees:E Residential Districts..............................-.......... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) E Notification Sign (city to install and remove) I Property Owners' List within 500' lclty to generate aier pre-application meeting) Lot Line Adjustrnent.................... Final Plat............................. ............................ (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)' 'Additional escrow may be required tor other applications through the development contract. E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) E Variance (VAR)...... .......... ...... $200 E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) n Single-Family Residence.-............................. $150 ! ett otners...-.. .....................$275 ! Zoning Appea1................. ......... $100 E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 !lME: Vt/h.n multiple applications .rr proc.ss.d concur.?tdy, th. rppropri.t lbq shall be chrEcd for eaah .pplicrtion. $200 ( {D addresses) $3 per address E] Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply).................... E Conditional Use Permit ! lnterim Use Permit E Vacation E Variance E] Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements ( easements) ....................... $50 per document n Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration PermitE Deeos TOT AL FEE2{ S 7D , 04 Section 2: Required lnformation Description of Proposal: Remove existing patios, deck, and hardscape areas over the property lines. Construct the proposed back porch and deck. 6287 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 5S31Property Address or Location: Parcel #: 258450020 Lot 2 Block 1 Sweiger Development Total Acreage: Present Zoning Wetlands Present?EYesZruo Requested zoningSingle-Family Residential District (RSF)Not Applicable Not Applicable Existing Use of Property Echeck box if separate narrative is atiached APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW submirarDab:?/ Ic / 3/ pcoan.f-L1J]Lccoate:? kI-Jt}L soo"yn"ui"*o"t"A&L{-..itL/L- Legal Description: 0.48 Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation: Single Family Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln 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. lf this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation offull 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 Tim Johnson Contact: Phone: Tim Johnson Address 10799 Alberton Way ,n city/state/zip lnver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Cell: Fax: Date (651) 755-4s1 3 Sig nature:7t9t21 owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand ons of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the 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 Erin Hearst Contact: Phone: city/state/zip Email: Minnetonka, MN 55345 Cell: Fax:N/ Signature This application must be completed in tull and must be accompanied by all iniormation and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Bebre filing this application, reEr to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedurEll 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 deflciencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name:N/A Contact Phone:Address city/state/zip Email: Who should roceive copies o, staff reports?'Othor Contact lnformation: Name: Tim JohnsonProperty Owner ViaApplicant ViaEngineer ViaOthef Via Email Email Email Mailed Paper Copy Mailed Paper Copy Mailed Paper Copy Address:10799 Alberton Way city/state/zip lnver Grove Hei ohts. MN 55077 INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete 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 SAVE FORM PBINT FORM SUBMIT FORM n : E Email E tritaiteO Paper Copy Email:tiohnson@livi ure.com Email: I PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, Address: 17001 The Strand Oate: 7 El21 Cell: Fax: Section 4: Notification lnformation )uly 74, ZO27 6287 Chaska Road Variance Letter 6287 is a non-conforming residential property that has many non-conforming items that do not fit in today's current zoning requirements. The nontonforming items include; the current garage is t 7 feet from the back (south) lot line. The existing back deck is appx 2G21' from the back (south) lot line. There are other hardscape structures that are either over the lot lines or as close as 6'-7' from the back (south) property line. The current hardcover percentage is over the required 25%. The location of the existing home creates a practical difficulty to allow for typical improvements to a backyard. Lot line locations are much closer to the ba€k of the home due to the home's location. Accessing the property from the street require a longer driveway which increases the hardcover amounts. The proposed improvements will indude the followlr|8 adjustm€nts. . Remove the existing back deck and steps. . Construct a new covered porch in the same foot print as the current existing deck structure. . Construct a new deck platform at the back of the home and attached to the proposed porch. . Adjust the location ofthe existing hot tub. . Remove the back upper patio near the 5E corner. This patio is approximately 7' from the lot line. o Remove the back patio behind the garage that is 5.5'-7' from the back (south) property line. . Remove the west stone path that is o\rer the west prop€rty line. . Re{esign the existing back and side retaining walls. o The new wall will better direct water that is currently pooling along the side and back of the home. The new retaining wall locations will remain on the property. o Access from the west side yard to the back yard will be over a gravel path and boulder outcroppings due to the grade changes. This path will fit inside the lot line and be a part of the wall construction. This new path will be the only way to access the backyard areas. . New landscaping will be planned for the sides and back of the home. lmproving privacy from the back neighbors with trees and shrubs will be featured with the landscaping. . Cut out 2 areas of the existing driveway. This change will reduce access to a very long driveway. The clients are willing to make this adjustment to reduce hardcover. . The adjustments above will allow the new hardcover percentage to be at or slightly below the 25% city requirements. The improvements do not alter the character of the property. The changes allow all of the new structures to be in a better location from the south lot line compared to today's conditions. Written Justification: Variances shall only be permitted when they arc in harmony with the general purpses and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed plans allow for a space that is in the same location of a curent patio and deck. These improvements are further away from the back lot line than the cunent garage and patios. -JliL!VIT 5l ?E S'RUCIU PE b. When there are practical difficunies in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties,' as used in connecfion with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the propefiy in a reasonable manner not pe7,,,,ilted by this Chapter. Practical ditriculties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access lo direct sunlight tor solar enerw systems. Our practical diffidlties are challenged by the location of the cunent home's location compared to the properly lines. The cunent owners did not build the home and this home was built a while back prior to today's ordinances and setbacks. The current garage and home would not meet today's code. The opportunity to have a backyard space out of the 30'set back is not possible since the home is 17'from the back lot line. Our proposed deck and porch are appx 21' from the back lot line. This foot print is in the similar location as the existing deck and patio that exists today and when the owners purchased the property. We have worked to plan an outdoor space that has less impact on lhe neighboring lot lines and also brings the property under the city's requirements for hardcover.c. That the puryose of the variation is not based upo,n economic considentions alone. The goals of the property owner are not to flip the home with these improvements. We view these improvements as long lerm owners wishes to better the property and living experiences. The proposed improvements have been well planned and the vision is for a long stay wilh this property. Financially, the large number of improvements do not fit with a short term ownership.d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the propefty not created by the landowner. This home was built by prior owners along wilh the cunent landscaping. The cunent hardscapes and struclures lhat are not confoming to today's goals were done by the previous owners of the property. Our goal is to improve the property and the community with better landscaping and outdoor living opportunities. The cunent grading does not protect the home from upper drainage run off. During this process of improvements, we will also be improving the properties drainage issues around the home due to lhe prior landscaping.e. The vaiance, if granted, will not attg/, the essential character ot the locality. The proposed plans for the new porch and deck will not alter lhe character of the property or the community. The location of the proposed decl and porch are in the similar footprint of the existing deck. The improvemenls with the property also have moved the cunent structures further from the property lines and also removing the existing sauctures from the neighboring property. The architectural improvements tie an well with the existing homes chamcter and structural lines. Our goal is to also add new tees and landscaping between the back improvements and the south lot lines to increase privacy. f. Vaiances shall be gnnted tor earth shelterad construction as defined in Minneso'2 Stafufes Seclio,, 216C.06, suHivision 11, when in hermony with this Chapter. NIA we appreciate your conslderation with our proposed variance request. Please feel free to call or email me with any follow up questions. Thank you. Sincerely, 1ililUfttY t4. J1ffN1N Tim Johnson 651.755.4513 tiohnson(alivitsitestructure.com CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAYIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 5,2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public Hearing to consider a request for lot cover and setback variances to construct a porch and deck at 6287 Chaska Road, Planning Case No. 2021-17, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid 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 ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota" and by other appropriate Kim T.Deputy Cl Subscribed and s m to before me thi$dayof 2021. (Seat) Notary Publ records. M N6ry Subject Parcel )t I Disclalmer This map is neither a legally rccorded map nor a survey and is not intended lo be used as one. This map is a compilation of.ecords, anformation and data located in various city, county. state and federal oftces and other souaces regarding the alea shown. and as to b€ used br reference purposes only. The City does not wanant that the Geog6oic hformalion System (GlS) Oata use.l to prepaG this map are eroa fiee, and the Crty does not rcpresent that the GIS Data can be us€d for navigalronal, tracking or any other pupose requiring e&lcting measuremenl of distanc€ or direction or preosion in the depiclion of geographic features. The preceding disclaims is providecl pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of lhis map acknowiedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend. indemnify. and hold harmless the City fiom any and all claims brcught by lJser, its employees or agents. or thid parties which arige out of the users access or us€ of dete provided. This map ,s neither a legally @corded map nor a suruey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records. information and datra located in various ci9, county, state and federal offces and other sources regardjng the area shown, and is to be used ior reference purposes only The City does not warant that lhe Geographic lnformatirn System (GlS) Data used to prepare liis map are eror free, and lhe City does not.epresent that the Gls Data can be u3ed for navigational, racking or any other purpose requidng exacting measurcment ol distanc€ or directton or precision in the depictjon of geographic ieatures. The preceding disclaimer is Provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd 21 (2000), and the user of lhis map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expessly waives all claims, and agrees to defund, indemniry, and hold harmless the Cily from any and ell daims brought by User, its employees or agents, or lhird parties which aise out of lhe use/s access or use of dala provided. (Next RecordxTAX_NAMEI <TAX_ADD_Llr (TAX_ADD_L2D N \ \s \ \ ".. ,,, N a \I , sx nTAX_NAMET *TAX-ADD-LIr <TAX_ADD_L2l \ Z I\ Subject Parcel \ tl\ui . q ->' = o, +- =k cFO o) FE E o=E99s98iEta 65 E E b. =ooc-> ou eE: q rro o E E =fr,= ^ -[ 6-c*E c E6 Pxqi= 366: jj = *9i;9s s E e.8 8.AE B = o (t)-c:J -- c-- c c;; B€> EYtrXE06C)* 3=-R* s'q o;9i;.=(t o* - c ! Hg#ESs 0) (! q) o- c;c,F oo E o)E o.E o- oo'6' o- .9.c fo-oo o.,coo Eo E-- = =r-.; Fo a\alt : E q,ooo.t IE (, (,ii = .q -o ij5(Eo' d)B6a6-oiN- s66E E3(EE 3A =uOEtD(D att o'7 A- =obd .9 ->. 9oEo o=o-116 oeqr 6l9tdE ooo- o -c.a fo o Co (EEcoEq G E oo E o (., (g c o E2 ao () =oof.*F. 6 o-o E G.c, oc f O (5 I o E(E LL dJ .ao EocoN -ro o)! c 96otYd= O(s5= E.,2inio)UE o)oc(!'-o (! -oo Ec(E n) oo =.; IDlu E o o)E'6c O 9 --J (!) =oJ a od o) a F ) c c =o EF (5oI c'- uJ .9 o .!2 o ot p E (5Eootr.g(!o. ura(!: 6e Dt (o< o-Crio0l-cO -* i a€ p5U Ei"E€ -gq ,5 E:EE I *" 3 aEEE EEEE =E?ip EiiEp iE TE EE;; aEEi :5HEEEB89 ii=HPP - i (R= 2 (!.^ tr= EgEE g:-Ei agEEE Ee E= Err.g-c.! U,(rFC)o-EdrZ O)(! O =d6_EgF(oc(J(,rN(.r$ t q E; E .E ! p E E _a F E ci-oo t- o NoN t- -(,) f j o! q) fF o o(, d)'6 -oo = o -oo5 *;'ooo!;d) Y=o6ac 8EE- -Eoo E3a.cac'=oE_c-o 6qi<! 8= (sEcoo)o c')c 0)o Ec o.).c, E c Eo E oc o o !E(! o Eo o) '6 o o o5 E s)a =lUz EEEilEEglE'ggti EiiEiiiiEiEiiisE EtEltgilssisiggl EsEIg€EiiEEEgEEEE B a E 6 E o GooJ EooCI eG .E(, at ii(, ;o o, o o- >Er.9 o. r!9to-J 9i; =0, +*3eO,r! .E >o id i= od tl, |lto Bc oo =tr9.9.= ao EEJ-E 120Eo5CDo- .EoE or lg.9dotrza oa! cr! o oE a, o, = .P.E r!oo'=-E.JE=oi6 E.:otr EE6iza IAor!E t!3(, q)o Eo oo9PF- -E (58 N!OiNE,*f o)- <bj-s EE O!:tr! Ei 6 o (5 ooFF. ui o)-o Eo-cO alo oI !a_o LLat t c o)p o)t o)oc.E> >E -.2 .F gd, =o)(Dcth -.; c'o(!O 9€o oo -EOEec ;$o-E =opE oo 6Epi 2-s 3E ())-J Ef of o 06 o 6 F J fo cEo Ei: oo-c'- tlJ o I o P e o (5coo8.9oo. iio F. !q.oEN-(o< E* E€Pgs ee EE Eu F EIEE BE=Eol E P 9::(5 :AEE EEEEiEuP t!-E!UE.EE B=i 6:: x..P I Err eE€E sgs€geiz? E =;14 EgE! 3BEEE *E€-= slE,EFE_Ed0^.cgFOc(J(,FN(9s =t- NoN o?tr E C'otl!.C (!sq 'q ,;; :;.or-9, I9.!n aD+- = SEEEE: HI;E =E 3 ol.tooca€l i oo oiiEl: 9 o o P 5IE ! E6EAI;EEg;Yo.EL oE -r E]gE:; BE5:;sEs; E 9.8 8; E T6= o.r oE5 =6 -. *p=.= =aEi if iE5"1 9=*P, -HI gE ET E EHgIES# 0) o o)o q,c o E o.c, o o,Eo o o)'6' o .q. E f -oo (l.)coq.) E .c, = (I, q) o E .9 =l .9Ei;f(! 3eeaort-o}:o- EE(EE EB(sE BA =uOEoo @o'= o- =o6(L 9 ->, 9oEo)o=o-!6 la;otiE o--c.9 o E ,oc f c Ec 0) o.c,co!q (.) > >; tt Goc 0)o)(E or -9.q^66o9A cdo-o-c C) == oi: E()oc)iE -cqo x6 .(!o! =sc)(oO odoo.>t3s9E 9E l< o)c CDa =0)=xLlr EZ.d q E E { g I a, i: .6 o (go -ooo(Lo o- t!o CLIL o =o Eq, CII o- >Et.o o. i!eta-J I iit dr .= +'ErO|ll.c =E cd ..o9ccoo o=OE3Ooo o ag a)oJ €..o9EEoo o=OEfooo OOO O O OO O OO O O o O O O OOO O O OO o o o Fr O Fr O O OO O OEl d \9..,1 (!) rrl il Sl S {rrnq0H NNtFt.{C)FtF. oO Fr r-t O,r C, i (n r! .n N (n st O rnOA O O O < O O n O E, O <.:r g O O O O O O OO O O Fr o o O O O Oo ; Oaaoooooooooooooooo(n0000000000000e)cl0Ol OT O O E E O E l> F. F O F. F. O O Ul <t rn (o N l\ Ln (o F. F. @ O 6 !6 lrt 6 6 6 O1rrl rn fi o'! (o (o or (o (o (o (o Fr ro (o F{ r-.r sf o Q (o (o (o F{ F.r (o (o q,\ F{ (,1 <t sf ctr cl1 !a !a - s 9.rara! ryi.1 a! ryN.\l r-i N (\l r-r ..r ao F- o (n a\ N FlFtNNa.{ F{ (\ co6Na.,tSl Sl = rjl r.n rJ1 l,r !n l,) lJ) U) rrl l/) r./1 l,l rrl u1 r/1 !/11/)La Ln6lJl ln l,/1 rn t,' Ln Ln Ln!aul!nl,tl'n!nl.,1da.lNNNN Na!N Net6J a..J N N N N N a.,l a! (\ N N a.\i (.,t ..,1 N N.!N N6i 6ie..i-- o ao o o o60 06. Gq. nJrrG r!urr!uJ E lJurEEe. >FFJFFFFJFFJJ-J :i!2==<<=<<<<=<<:- :=\@^iaii!?'e i e q.i9 = I I = = = I 9 _o e e e p e e e e Aeeep==d,t-d,d,o 5 5 6 6 = = 6 = = = = E = = 5 6 6 ? d ; -^------6666; ; ; ; ; 6 5 Egss3fi AEfi fi AA=AAE gsgS$ESS$5$$$$$$$$E g ,-l rn I Q c, c).r cl c) !.r o Fr o O -r e e c) Er.r c) Fr N O O.n o c) !r1 c) u) F. O c) Fr !o = N Ln LO Fl Fl Fla{NN rn (n sl st <l€Orac)N \t L/1 u) u1 (o @ (O N F. € @ @ dr O \o LO =.n..,NNN NNN N NNNN a! a.i m rn <l <f Na\a!r\ N a.,t N N N a\ a\l a! N dl rn (nr^ N (0 a{ N a.,t a.,J N a! N r.,t .! N N N a\ t\ a{ 6t (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o @ (o @ @ @ @ (o (o (o -E o S SHB3 Fr (y) =$.as ^dsrsr <f sr rn !^ 6r sid o$ $$BB $$ 3:i$$ H$$$ $ $$B$ch-,.NFF=rn6(]D !l an.n(n ln an an ln ln rn d1 (n (Y) (n.n.n> !a .n (n (n:..: rn dl rn d1 lYl .n rr) d) (n.n.n.n.L I L,t rtr o lrJ dr ltl ri (n an o o ln rD (n rn -- (Y) .n (n = rn rn d) (n (?t (n ,n arl tn rn rn .nga !? ur ul rJl r.n rJ') rJl rJ) r/) rJl rrl rn r,) u) Lrt th I z ti 6 ul l: L/t !a Lrt rn tn u) t4 !n Uo La lrt !nts x - ,r, rn rn ul u) lJ.t r.r') rJ) rJ) rJl ta !n ,1.,)E >.n '4 'Jt ;i r/l rrt Ln r^ rn Ld r,) Ln ul u) L/) !/1o-<zzzzzzzzzzzzzz! _- z z z , z 2 z z z z z z z z z z -.r -. !a V d d d d d d d d d d d d A d - =^ oe oe oe i oi oa oa oe oi aa oa oi oe oa oe oaRPPs9oo9ooo9ooe999cHoo9ao9999gg9ooo9 -- \-a J - t\ v\ v\ t\.r\ ttt vl th ttt ta u1 u1 !1 tt - uJ t\ tt\ ttt = t\ tt tt ttt tft tt tt ttq<t,.. .) J J - J J J JI JI J J J J J J JlLl - a1 uJ !! uJ uJ uJ rrr uJ a! t! r! uJ r! qJ ur > = uJ ur ur !q uJ sJ sl ur r! uJ r! r!X = A = (J (J U (J (J (J L, (J (J (J U U O O = 1 L.) (J U I! (J U U (J (J (J (J (J U (J (J (Jg+C)qxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<=xxx9xxxxxxxxxxxxF (J J O- lrJ lrJ UJ UJ lrJ UJ r! !! sJ rrJ r! r! uJ uJ ah Z, UJ Ur ur @ Lu uJ uJ Lri rrJ L|.j iri ifi 6FrNFgJ o-F<trl g\ -t F* >o 6 6 oooRg i^ t A E - - E - - - - E - - E E E r,.r 6 RI-FJFFFFJt-l-J)..JTATL <= < < = < < < 't = ir '* = = = u' > oo9oaooaooo66zzH = = 9 9 = P I g I = I P I -- - ; C g e, e, z 6 G. G. E G c. q. e. e. E J, :Ea=e==q====e==qqef; =fi fi fi Efi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi AA?Ed:=99E9999=99=EE=85U5u5555588555== --l ? " i\ o o Fr o o Fr o F{ o o.r o O o o ,-r o -r r- @ o (Yt qr o 6 o ul t\ o o.r (o)5 O st 08 Fl Fl !-l N N .\l ,Yt (n \t + rt OO Ln .! N <f r.,) r.r1 (D(O(.oroNF.aO@@dtOr.or.o<tN(o(ga,lNNa,lo,lNNa\Na\'lNNanan(n(ONl'\ia!NN..,1 N a\l NN (\ 6l a! (r).n.t1F i.l r-.1 F.l (1 N N N a! a! r! N N N N N N a.,l l.. L/) rO lO (o (o (o (o (o (o (D rO (.o (o (O (O (O (O 6r,PE G. t^- F Q < cfr.. f = 3 7. F = H' P Ui ZaQ r 3ip E E: -E5g ^H E =EgEEg;IEIEEEIII*Ilgg=f; EE=E=E===== 3=HtE=)-nO<'- H3E;TE =EE6+3m(ratl- (p<,-;v 2 Eu oroql('roqr55qJUr(r)(^)oo\o(o{!(rro(,l)o@! mmrrlr"tmm?-Fl-|-|-|-oooooooo009(, l-|--l-|-|-zzzzzz mmrnFllnmxxxxxx(1a)a)r)r)a')mmlnmmm 94994999oooooovvvvvv zzzzzzur l, (n (n (, r,(, l, (,! (, g.r l,qr uJ r, (, ur r,uJ(,LDu,uJQPPPPFPol or qr qr5555ooooqJ (,I NJ NJ <D <n o clr <,r or55(^)qJ(.A)U,'oo(o(o!!iJroqro@! mmmmrnmoooooooo0009 zzzzzz 1\) N) AJ AJ N) I\J(, ur (/r (r (Jr (,AAA5A5(^ (n ur ul (r ur(o (o (o (o r0 (ooooooooooooo\rCltOulE\Ooooooo