Loading...
BOA 1999 01 12 AGENDA CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF AD~STMENTS AND APPEALS TUESDA Y, JANUARY 12, 1~, ~:00 P.M. CH.4NHASSEN CITY HALL, 6~0 CITY CENTER DRIVE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Call to Order NE W BUSINESS A request for thc following variances for thc constxucfion of a singlo-family residence on Lot 42, Shore Acres, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd., Bob and Brinn Wire (1) A 12,515 sq. i%. variance from the 20,000 sq. i%. lot area ~ for a recreational development lake lot. (2) A 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot lot width require~a~nt. (3) A 14 foot variance from the 30 foot fi'ont yard setback requiremeot. (4) A 3 foot variance on the western prope~ line from the 10 foot side yard setbac, k requirement. (5) A 51 foot variance from the 75 foot width requirement for recreational development lake lots for lake ac, ce, ss. 2. Approval of Minutes. Adjournment $11 TY OF BOA DATE: ~ lf12/99 CC DATE: CASE #: 98-12 VAR By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT Z <( residence: (1) A 12,515 sq. ff. variance fromthe 20,000 sq. ff. lot area ~luirement for arecre~onal developmem lake lot~ (2) A 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot lot width requJteanent. .. (3) A ~ 14 foot varisnce from the 30 foot ~ont yard settnck requiremmt. (4) Ag3 foot variance on the westempropettyl/ne fromthe 10 foot sideym'd~~t. (6) A 51 foot variance from the 75 foot width requirement for recreational development lake lots for lake LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres (9247 Lake Riley Blvd.) APPLICANT: Bob and Brinn Witt 8572 C. ardiff Lane Shore, wood, ~ 55344 914-9075 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 2000 LAND USE PLAN: RSF, Single Family Residential Approximately 7,458 square feet N/A N: S: E: W: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential RD, Recreational Development Lake, Lake Riley RD, Recreational Development Lake, Lake Riley RSF, Single-Family Residential Available to the site The site is a vacant, riparian lot. It is fairly flat with very little elevation change. Low Density Residential BANOIM~t~ H~IGH~'S PARK COMMUNI~"Y PARK PIONEER CIRCLE LAKE O0 8900 9200 9300 9400 9UO0 99OO I0000 I0100 10200 10300 · -10400 5 Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-480 (2) requires that riparian lots on recreational development be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft (Attachment 2). Section 20-615 (2) requires that non-cul-de-sac lots in a residential district be a minimum width of 90 feet at the street (Attachment 3). Section 20-615 (6) (a) requires a 30 foot setback on properties zoned residential (Attachment 3). Section 20-615 (6) (c) requires 10 foot side yard setbacks on properties zoned residential (Attachment 3). Section 20-481 (a) requires that structures be setback seventy-five (75) feet from recreational development lakes (Attachment 4). Section 20-615 (4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all struc~ and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent in RSF districts (Attachment 3). Section 20481 (f) requires that the height of structures on riparian lots shall not exceed 35 feet in residential districts (Attachment 5). Section 20-1 states that the definition of Dock Setback Zone as the area inside and running parallel to and ten (1 O)feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake (Attachment 6). BOARD OF ADJUST1V~NTS AND APPEALS UPDATE On December 1, 1998 the Board reviewed this variance request. The Board tabled the item because it was determined that the applicant needed to submitted more detailed plans. The Board agreed to give the following parameters for the house footprint: a 16 foot front yard setback (14 foot variance), a 7 foot west side yard setback (3 foot variance)and a 70 foot shoreland setback (5 foot variance). The Board required that the house and new drive not exceed the 25 percent maximum impervious surface coverage. The applicant has resubmitted a house plan designed within the parameters offered by the Board (Attachment 11). In order to maintain the maximum impervious surface, the proposal had to maintain the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The staff report has been revised to reflect the new proposaL All new information is in bold typed and all outdated information has been struck through. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 3 BACKGROUND Shore Acres subdivision was platted in 1951 to accommodate cottages and summer homes. The 42 lots range from 24 to 50 feet in width and 130 to 230 feet in depth. Of the original 42 lots, only 6 remain as single lots. The subject property is a single lot. The remainder of the properties are assembled contiguous lots to create a larger buildable area. Although these are lots of record, many property owners find it challenging to place a home on the lot. Therefore, many property owners requested variances from zoning ordinance requirements. The following table summarizes the variances granted on Lake Riley Blvd. Variance # Address Type of Variance 98-6 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres 7' from yard setback variance for an addition 97-11 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 30 & 31, Shore Acres 7' lakeshore variance w/the condition that only 23 % of the lot be impervious surface 96-9 9225 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot31 3' east setback variance, 5' west setback variance, a 33' shoreland setback variance and a variance from the hard surface coverage. HOME NEVER CONSTRUCTED 93-10 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 11 and 12 4' shoreland setback variance for garage and home addition 93-8 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. LOts 38 and 39 9' shoreland setback and 8' front yard setback variance for home addition 92-9 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 36' shoreland setback variance for deck addition 92-2 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. LOt 29 14' front yard, 6.5' side yard, and a 7% hard coverage variance for a detached garage 91-16 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 17, 18, & 19 7.5' side yard variance for a home addition 90-7 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 1 Rogers Add. 12' shoreland setback variance for a new home Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 4 89-13 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 15 & 16 4' side yard varianc~ for home addition 89-1 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 42 14' front yard, 7' shoreland, and 4.5' side yard set back variances for a new home _ SUBJF, C'F PROPERTY- HOME NEVER CONSTRUCTED 87-8 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. 18' shoreland setback and lot area variances 86-1 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 34 & 35 40' shoreland setback variance for a new home Nine of the 13 variances were from the shoreland setback (Attachment 7). The'following details the lots' specifies. COMPARISON OF SItORELAND VARIANCES Number Address Lot depth Lot width Total area Variance Purpose ~ 9g4g '," ,~ .... ~ 7;48-5 11' 97-11 9225 and 187.5 avg. 70' street 16, I75 7' home 9223 10T lake 96-9 9225 195' avg. 32.5' street 7,825 33' home 52' lake 93-10 9919 130' 95' slxeet 13,000 4' addition 102' lake 93-8 9243 140' avg. 100' both 14~000 9' addition 92-9 9021 92.5 avg. 150' both 13,875 36' addition 90-7 9051 120' 130' both 15~600 12' home 89-1 9247 145' 80' street 7,250 7' home 25' lake 87-8 9005 100' avg. 140' both 13,500 18' home 86-1' 9235 180' avg. 50' street 20,700 40' home lot) *west and south portion of the lot have lake frontage This comparison was presented to show that each of these requem had situations that warranted relief. Not all variances are created equal. The site plan indicates that the house footprint will maintain the required lakeshore setback so it has been struck through on the above table. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 5 In 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved the following setbacks on this property: 14 foot front yard setback, 4.5 foot western side yard setback and 68 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a single family home on this property. In that same year, contamination was discovered on the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MnPCA) required the lot to be decontaminated. This process took until 1992. Variances are only valid for one (1) year so if the project has not been substantially completed, an extension must be requested and granted from the City Council. The City Council gnmted five (5) extensions to the property owner. However, the home was never constructed. The original report is included in Attachment 8. Staff has compiled a table displaying the history of the setbacks on Lot 42, Shore Acres. The original home was signfficanfly smaller than both subsequent proposals. The original home was no closer than 20 feet to the front property and 78 feet to Lake Riley. The variances granted in 1989 did not require the property owner to maintain either of these two setbacks. The applicant did not design the house for the size and shape of the lot. The footprint was excessively large. The current proposal maintains the lakeshore setback and the eastern side yard setback, but encroaches into the front and west side yard setbacks. It is definitely an improvement over the 1989 proposal. SETBACK HISTORY Setbacks/ RSF Original Variance Current Requirements Requirements House #89-1 Proposal Front 30 feet 20 feet 16 feet 16 feet West Side 10 feet 6.8 feet 5.5 feet 7 feet East Side 10 feet -2.5 feet 10 feet 10 feet Lake 75 feet 78 feet 68 feet 75 feet Lot Area 25 % 23 % 34 % 25 % The current application seeks *~' ....... ~*'~ .... ~'" "'~":"~ ! r~oa ....... variances from the lot area requirement, minimum lot width requirement, maximm'n ~,...,.,,.,c ......... ~,~,,..: ..... ~...,,..,~-~,--~,...,. minimum lot width for lake access requirement, front yard setback requirement and side yard setback requirement. Staff is recommending that only the minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum lot width for lake access variances be approved. ANALYSIS This application is a request for ~ five (5) variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Relief is requested from the following requirements: minimum shoreland lot area, Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 6 minimum lot ,width, front yalxi setback, weotem sich~ yard setback,_~,~."~ "'-" "" ".,..,..... ,...,.,.......,""+~'""t' and minimum shoreline for lake aceeos~ J ~~' I l ...... -~-t--: -- ..~_,' ...... .,...._.-'g-~- to construct a s Section 20-58 states that a reasonable use must be granted to the ~ owner. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home. StatTbelieveo that the applicant can construct a single family home within the required setbacks, however, it may not be the desired square footage. A hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. If a hardship has been demonstrated, the property owner shall be granted a variance to offer relief. In this case, staff believes that the applicant can construct a single family home that suits the lot. VARIANCES Lot Area Variance The subject property is approximately 7,485 square feet or 7,515 square feet le0s ~ the minimum in the RSF, Single-Family Residential district. The shoreland ordinance requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet for a riparian lot. Therefore, a 12,515 sq. ft. variance is required. Staff supports this variance so a home can be constructed on the property and the owner will have a reasonable use. Minimum Lot Width (at the stree0 Variance Acco~ing to the site plan submi~ the property has 77.5 feet of street frontage. The zoning ordinance requires 90 feet (at the 30 foot setback). Staff supports a 12.5 foot variance so that the applicant can make a reasonable use of the property. Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant is proposing to place the house -1-5 16 feet from the property line ab~ Lake Riley Blvd. T~., '-'"'"'-'""'"~"~'"'"+k""'l"' k.,.,.,., ""' · '"", ....... ,,.,'; ....... .,.,.,.~--=~-~., ,.,.,. ,.,,.,.- A ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.'~"'"'"'"' +1.,,.,.,.,., ...... ,,,,,,,. · -,, 'T'%.,..,.,.,,, .... '"'l"yl';'""'"'+............ ~ ! 7 ~"'"+ '"": .... The zoning ordinance requir~ a ~0 foot fi'ont ~ setback. ~v~my of the properties on Lake l~lc~ do no~ meet the required front yard setback. Staff would like to see thc home meet the lakeohore setback and will support a minimum (leos than 5 fee0 front yard setback variance. However, -l-g 16 feet is excessive. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 7 Side Yard Setback Variance The applicant is requesting a $ 3 foot variance from the western side yard setback. The home is 7 feet from the lot line -,,nd ~z eavz ..'r. 2 fzzt. The zoning ordinance requires a 10 foot side yard setback. Staff believes that the applicant can construct a home within the required side yard setbacks and does not support this variance. This may improperly redirect drainage on the neighbors property and create unforeseen problems. The applicant will have to create drainage swales In both side yards to direct water from the street to the lake. Shoreland Setback Variance The applicant has revised the plans indicating that the home maintains the 75 feet setback. However, the setback is measured from the ordinary high water (OHW) mark. The OHW and setback will be required on the survey submitted at the time of building permit. This section has been struck through. Lake Riley is a recreational development lake and is protected by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The MnDNR has set standards for setbacks on protected waters, which have been adopted by the City of Charthassen. The setback for sewered structures on recreational development lakes is 75 feet. These setbacks intend to maintain good water quality. All the water runoff from this lot is discharged into Lake Riley. Staff would recommend that the Board not approve the lakeshore variance to increase the buffer to the lake. The City has worked hard to be proactive in protecting water quality of its lakes and in doing so we have established favorable relationships with regulatory agencies, such as local watershed districts and the MnDNR, Chanhassen has earned the ability to regulate building permits without having duplicate reviews by other agencies. The City has also been working with lakeshore owners throughout the City, encoura~ng landscape plans that are "lake friendly" and stressing the importance of the lake impact z6ne. Minimum Shoreland Width for Access Variance The lakeshore ordinances were adopted from rules developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The MnDNR requires that lakeshore lots on recreational development Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 8 lakes shall have a minimum width of 75 feet at the lake in order to have riparian rights. While the City requires a 90 foot width at the street, the MnDNR's r~quix~m~ should be maintained at the OHW. The subject prop~y is 24 feet wide at the lake, according to the site plan. Ia order to have lake rights, or a dock, the applicant needs a variance form thi~ requLrement. A dock was present on the property when the variances were granted in 1989. However, the dock was required to be removed when it was evident that the home was not going to be constructed in 1995. Section 20-904 (c) of the zoning ordinance states that no accessory structure shall be present on a parcel with an area less than 3 acres without a primary structure. A primary structure is defined as a home. If the applicant is granted a variance from this requirement, the dock will be required to maintain the required setbacks. The zoning ordinance requires a 10 foot setback from the side lot lines for the dock. Therefore, a 4 foot wide dock can be maintained on the property. Staff is concerned about recommending approval for this variance. Although the property is a lot of record, the dock was required to be removed from the property. (Staffhas noted that the dock reappeared recently when the property went up for sale.) However, the majority of riparian properties have lake access. The denial of this variance would dramatically decrease the value of this parcel. Impervious Surface Variance According to the revised site plan, the hard surface coverage is 24.5 percent At the December 1st meeting, the Board required the proposal to meet the 25 percent maximum impervious surface. Staff does not support a variance from this requirement. Maintaining the 25 percent will ensure maximum absorbency and the ~tering of water prior to entering Lake Riley. Additional hard surface may redirect water onto adjacent properties. Most residential properties are well under 25 percent hard surface coverage. ,L,L · 1 ~ I ~71 · ~: .... n ....... ~ ~e lot co~d ~mm~m, ~out v~c~, a 30 f~t by 40 f~t ho~e p~ at ~ 30 f~t ~t ~ sc~k ~ a 20 f~t ~de ~veway. S~Kbeliev~ ~t a home shoed be d~i~ for ~ loL ~e ~o~ ~p~o~ s~e will e~ge ~ge pa~ ~d ~~~ ~oK ~ ~ ~. A ~ge p~ ~ not subbed ~ ~s a~ea~o~ ~fo~, a ~e ofbuil~g pe~ S~ propos~ house ~H ~ 2,000 sq~ f~t Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 9 large for a 7,458 square foot lot. Staff understands that the applicant wishes construct a nice home, however, it should not overwhelm the lot. Staff does not support the variance from the impervious surface requirement. GRADING & HOME TYPE The -----~:~---* ~--~ -*-*~ *" -*-~*~'"* site plan indicates the home will be a 2-story walkout. This type of home does not conform to the site topography, which requires a minimum 8 foot elevation change. Staff will not permit this type of home. The elevation change is not dramatic enough for this type of home. Also, the basement elevation must be 3 feet above the highest known water level of Lake Riley (Section 20481 (e) (1) (a)). According to city records, the highest water level is 865.5 feet. Based on this information, the lot could accommodate, at best, a lookout with window wells. The applicant will be required to submit a survey with drainage and grading plans. This survey must be completed by a registered surveyor. DRAINAGE Although drainage plans were not submitted, staff would like to comment on the impact the construction will have on the site. The home cannot redirect drainage onto neighboring properties. An alternative home plan should be submitted that suits the size and topography of the site. The resubmitted proposal is still slightly large for the lot. Therefore, staff does not believe that a hardship has been demonstrated and recommends that the variances from the front yard setback, side yard setback, lakeshore setback and impervious surface requirement not be granted. Staff does support the lot area variance, lot width variance and minimum lakeshore width variances so the applicant has reasonable use of the property. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to reco~ize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 10 would not cause an undue hardship. The property can accommodate an 1,800 sq. fL house pad. Although this property is one-half the size of the required square footage of residential lot, staffbelieves that a home can be co~ within the required setbacks and complement the character of the neighbortmod. Although pre-existing smadards exist ia this area, granting all of the requested Variances would depart downward from these standards. It is possible that the adjacent homes could be damoli~ed in the furore so that larger homes could be built, and those new homes would have to meet the required setback- bi The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, gen~y, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance request is based are at~licable to all lakeshore properties. The majority of all residential properties have to maintain the required setbacks. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: A home will increase the value of this property and a larger home will dramatically increase the value of the parcel even more. However, ~does not believe that the exclusive purpose of this variance is to increase the value or income of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created. The applicants desire to construct a large home on a small lot created the majority of the variance requests. A smaller house pad would complement the lot and the neighborhood. This is not a neighborhood with large lake homes. It is clear that there are other alternatives. ee The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements ia the neighborhood ia which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will permit a home to be constructed iato required setbacks. The site is located on a lake and green space is important ia such cases to maximize the absorbency and filtering of water before it enters the lake. The large house pad will alter the existing drainage patterns of the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 11 Finding: The variance will permit a home to be located closer to the lake, the street and neighboring properties than what would normally be found in other lakeshore properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motions: , 'Tae Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the requests for the ~ 16 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement, and the g 3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard construction of a singld-family home based upon the findings presented in the staff'report." , '~'he Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves the requests for a 12,515 variance from the lot area requirements for a lot on a recreational development lake, a 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot lot width requirement, and a 51 foot variance from the 75 foot lot width requirement for riparian lots on recreational development lakes for lake access subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed surveyor. , A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan with 2-foot contours shall be submitted at time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. 3. The basement of the home must be 3 feet above the ordinary high water mark of the lake. 4. Type 111 erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation has been restored. 5. The applicant shall maintain the 10 foot required dock setbacks." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-480 (2), Shoreland Minimum Lot Size 3. Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks for RSF properties 4. Section 20-481 (a), Shoreland Setbacks 5. Section 20-481 (f), Shoreland Structure Maximum Height 6. Section 20-1, Definition of Dock Setback Zone 7. Lake Riley Blvd. Variances form Lakeshore Setback 8. Variance # 89-1 and Site Plan 9. MnDNR Minimum Shoreland Lot Widths Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 12 10. Section 20-481 (e) (1) (a), Minimum of Elevation of Lowest Floor Level ofI. akeshore Property 11. Revised Site Plan 12. Letter from Ceil Straus, MnDNR to Cindy Kimhoffclated November 25, 1998 13. Property Owners 98-12 vat. doc TELEPHONE (Day time) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 5,5317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning · Sign Permits Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements ~,-'~. ariance Wetland Alteration Permit , . Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*' ($50 CUPISPRNACIVAR/WAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ 7 '~-:~_~7 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. '* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When mu~tip!e applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME ~/~.OCATION 'v" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~ust be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information ~l~and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should, confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that ! am responslble fo? complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. 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 have ~tached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Titi~ or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 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, feas~ility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. /- V ! also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signat~ of Applicant Date ~nature of Fee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Date .g75.oo Receipt No. · The appllcant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contac'ted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. November 12,1998 City of Chantmssen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen MN 55318 To City Officers; In reference to proposed variance. For Robert and Brinn Marie Witt 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen MN Lot 42 Shore Acres Front: 13 feet including overhang. 15 feet to Garage. Westside: 3 feet including overhang. 5feet to house Eastside: 8 feet including overhang. 10 to house Lakeside: 67 feet including overhang to comer of porch. 73 feet to comer of house including overhang. We are also requesting a variance for a Dock for access/use of Lake Riley. Thank you ['or your consideration. § 20-479 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P). Purgatory CreekmFrom Lotus Lal/e (10-6P) to east city boundary. All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification herein shall be considered ~tributar~. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitary provision~ (a) Lot area and width standards. The lot area (in square fee~) and lot width standards (in feet) for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential lots created ~ the date of enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classification are as follows: (1) Sewered lakesmNatural environment: Riparian Lots 1Vonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 Duplex 70,000 225 35,000 180 Triplex 100,000 325 52,000 270 Quad 130,000 425 65,000 360 (2) Sewered lakes--Recreational development: .-- Riparian Lots 1Vonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single .20 0.~Q~~00 90 15,000 90 Duplex 35,000 135 26,000 - 135 Triplex 50,000 195 38,000 190 Quad 65,000 255 49,000 245 Unsewered lakes--Recreational development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 (3) River/stream lot wJ. dth standards. There is no minimum lot size requirements for rivers and streams. The lot width standards" for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six (6) river/stream classifications are as follows: Tributary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer Single 150 100 90 Duplex 225 150 115 Supp. No. 8 1194 § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-598. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note--Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Seca. 20-597--20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. '~q, SF" SINGLE.FAMII,Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. , The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. Bio. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this cl~apter. (Ord. No. 80, Ar~. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 ZONING § 20-615 (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (6) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-1§-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference~Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF' District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15~000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. ~f_~)/.~e m_'m_/_i_i~tm_Jot fronta_geis..ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lot~ Wher~ Frontlgl Ii M~lsur~d At 8BtbBok LIn~ L (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. Hock /Fleo LOtl (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: v/ a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 v/ c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and]or neck lots are as ~ollows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard sh~11 be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite fxom the front lot line with the remA;ning exposures trea~ as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback ahall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line' where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot mi~imunl width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note~Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such pro.vision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to ~mend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisio~ of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617--20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XTTT. '5t.4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20.631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. -. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 ZONING § 20-481 Tributary Agdcultural 1VoSewer Sewer Triplex 300 200 150 Quad 375 250 190 (4) Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95) Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, s~ructures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Waters Lakes Natural environment Recreational development Rivers Agricultural and tributary Sewage Structures ~eatment Unsewered Sewered System 150 150 150 100 ., 75 100 50 75 When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance set forth in the above table or the setback of the existing structure. One (1) water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2Xb) of this article may be setback a minimum distance often (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. (b) Additional structure setbacks. The follovring h~lditional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody. Setback From: (1) Top of bluff; (2) Unplatted cemetery; (~) Right-of-way line of federal, state, or county highway; and Setback (in feet) 30 50 50 Supp. No. 8 1195 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE sewage treatment system,, roads, .driveways, stru~, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determ~-~l necessary, conditions shsJl be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. )~'-(D Height of structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonres- idential agricultural structures, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-482. Shoreland alterations. (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation alterations. (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treat- ment systems and the construction of roads and parlrl,g areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the fo]lowing vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conver- sion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: 1. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; 2.Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; 3. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and 4. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 251, § 1, 4-8-96) Supp. No. 9 1196.2 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Crftic~Z root zone means an area twelve (12) times the tree diameter at DBH measured from the base of the tree. Cul-de-sac means a minor street with only one (1) outlet and having an appropriate turn-around for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement. Day care center means any facility or home where tuition, fees or other forms of compensation is charged for the care of children'and which is licensed by the state as a day care center. DBH means diameter measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the groundi. Deck means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site. Density, net means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes. Designated woodland area means an area within a development that has been designated in the woodland management plan as a tree preservation, forestation or replacement planting area. Development means the division of a parcel of land into two (2) or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any structure; any m~nlng excavation, landfill or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the use of land. Dock means a wharf, pier, or other structure constructed or m-i,~tAi-ed, whether floating or not, including all "L's," "T's" or posts which may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. Dock crossbar means that portion of any "L" shaped or "T" shaped dock which is approximately parallel in alignment to the adjoining shoreline or ordinary high water mark. ./ Dock setback zone means the area inside and running parallel to and ten (10) feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake. "Extended lot lines" means an extension of the side lot lines one hundred (100) feet into a lake from and at a right angle to a line drawn between the intersection of each side lot line and the ordinary high water mark. If the extended lot lines of adjoining lots overlap, then the common extended lot line between the lots shall be at an angle which equally divides the area of overlap. Drive-in use means an establishment which by design, physical facilities, service, or by packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtAi,~ goods, or be entertained while remaining in their motor vehicle. This term includes having "drive-thru" windows. Dwelling means a building or portion thereof designed, occupied or intended to be occupied exclusively for residential purposes, but not including hotels, motels, nursing homes, travel trailers, motorhomes or bed and breakfast tourist homes. Supp. No. 9 1146 . 6. PREWlTT i 16f' 24 I q OUTLoT ~ / ! II : lO 18 S 16° 40'¥ C$ ee4.0'wf) BE N. GPA Cert. ( L, ITY OF DATE: Feb. 27, 1989 C.C. DATE: CASE NO: 89-1 Variance Prepared by: Hanson/v~ ! STAFF REPORT PROPDSAL: LOCATION-. APPLICANT: -, Variance for Construction of a Single Famil~ Residen¢ Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage James & Mary Ellen Jessup 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 · I ill I · i i~ PRESENT ZONING: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley Boulevard ;~.~ ~'v ~ .:. :.-..:........ ~_..,._.. / .. ~,-;'.' . ........ .h.::..' . . ., · I I I II I · .. ..... ..... RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: .17 acres (7,500 + s.f.) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING · AND LAND USE: N~ PUD-R; residential single family S- RD; Lake Riley E- RSF; residential single family W- RSF; residential single family WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC.: Site slopes to lake 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential ! R12 8600 8700 88O0 'ARD A2' PUD- F, RD 89O0 90OO 9100 ' 9200 9300 -9400 9500 9600 · 9700 9800=0 I00 200 Jessup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 2 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES RSF Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Description Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance Front Setback 30' 20' -10' 20' -10' Side (east) 10' 6.8' - 3.2' 5' - 5' Side (west) ~0' -2.5' -12.5' 1' - 9' Rear 75' 78' + 3' 61' -14' Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9% Coverage The applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set- back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864.5. The survey of the property does not include the elevation so the exact location of the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to encroach into the setback 14 feet. The side setback (west) is requested to be 1 foot. The existing garage on the property is located 2.- feet off the property. The other side setback (east) is presently 6.8 feet and the proposal is for this to be $ feet at the garage and 10 feet along the side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also, the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor- ners of the house would be out of the setback. The front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and this is con- sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard and this neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car to park in the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck and porch would bring this into compliance with code require- ments. The lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conformance with this requirement. -essup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 3 The zoning code provides five findings that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals must make in order to grant the variance request. These criteria and staff analysis are as follows: A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. * The literal enforcement of this chapter would not preclude use of the property, however, enforcement of the front set- back would require a setback which is not characteristic of the homes e~st of this lot on the lake side of Lake Riley Boulevard. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. * ~pecial conditions are that this lot is narrower and smaller than would be required under the present codes if it were to be created now. The question is can the lot be developed and comply with code requirements, and the answer is yes, the lot could be developed but not with a home of' the size that is proposed. C. That the granting of the variance is n~cessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. * The property could be developed without th~ variances although the house would have to have a smaller foot print. ~he granting of the front yard variance allows some flexi- bility and is in keeping with the lots to the east. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. * The home to be built is a new home and it is difficult to say that non-compliance with the setbacks is not self- imposed. The present zoning was in effect when the owners purchased the property and there has been no change in requirements. , E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. * The front setback is in character. Some side yard setbacks may be appropriate but a 90% reduction on the side and 50% on the other indicates the structure is simply to large for the site. This is further noted by the proposed lot -essup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 4 coverage of 34% versus the code requirement of 25%. The encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not something the city has allowed except in unique areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals not approve the variances as proposed based on findings that the request does not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff recommends the Board adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed variances for Variance Request ~89-1, James Jessu~, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side yard setbacks, rea~ yard setback and maximum lot cover of the Pity Code based on the following findings: 1. Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac- tical difficulty. 2. The variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size and design of the proposed structures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated February 20, 1989. 2. Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989 Application. 3. Existing plot plan. 4. Proposed plot plan. February 20,-1989 Board of Adjustment City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 5531 RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Board: I am reg~.esting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, ' _a,n~d both.s.ldes.of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake gluey aha is pie shaped with the narrow portion of-the lot to the lake. It was platted decades ago therefore is not upto current standards of lot size. The current situation is that a one story structure exists there now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the five setback from the lake. A portion of.the garage sets neighbors property on the West property line. The one car . e is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to remodel and add stories to obtain adequate spacce. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This alternative would require building a. structure three stories tall and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth alternative is one I propose , . It requires building a two story structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing conditions and is consistent with other nearby,lake lots. The tradeoff for heighth versus width is perferable. CITY OF CHANHA2CF. N CHAEHASSEN PlJ. l )lt!NO DEPT. The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual impact of a tall structure. I find the idea.not appealing also. The situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted, many decades ago. The lot is pie-shaped and not to current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The home on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year. The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current structure and like the idea of a new structure. I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and look forward to starting construction this Spring. ~incerely, ~ames F. Jessup .~roperty owner of )247 Lake Riley Blvd. February 21, 1989 Board of Adjustment City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 5531 RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. ClIT OF Cg g# EN EI GINEER O£PT. Dear Board: The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide me long term residence. · I am requesting variances on the setbacks On the front, rear, and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the lake. The current situation is that a one story structure exists there now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck. is within the seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets on the neighbors property, on the West property line. The one car garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too small and narrow by current standards. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This alternative would require building a structure three stories tall and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The tradeoff for height versus width is preferable. The request for variances is consistent with other lake properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore Acres, was recently granted twenty-five and forty feet variances for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the lake or side yard. The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual impact of a tall structure. The situation is peculiar to my lot as it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie-shaped. It is too narrow and too small in square footage by current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The home on the west side was recently remodeled and enlarged. The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current structure and like the idea of a new structure. I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and look forward to starting construction this Spring. Sincerely, James ~. ~Jessup resident/property owner of 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. LAND DEVELOP~T APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-190~ ADDRESS Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) ~/ · ~O Z8 TELEPHONE ADDRESS q~4 7 A A~5 ~ ~ UD. -. Zip Code REQUEST: · Zoning District Change ~,oning Appeal v/ Zoning Variance Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Review Platting Metes and Bounds Street/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY LOCATION REASONS ~R THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: This application must be complete~ in full and be typewritten ~t clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and. plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFIC.ATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances. Signed By ...~ .~ /~ / /A~i i c a n t . Date The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed By Date Application Received Application Fee Paid * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. III AI..qOA O TIE EXISTING ./ GARAG EXISTING HOUS~ EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE STLINE Of' THE' S.E. I/4 S~CT/OH Z4m T. 116 N., R.~3W., ACCORGING TO THE RECORD PLAT OF SHORE ACRES 'i!. f Exf~TING CHAIN UNK ~/L ~y c,'ert/r/cate R£T&IHI~G WALL ~,~ FXlSTIhfG CHAIN LINK OF IH£ OF THE S.£. I/4 Z4, T. ,,, H., ~IZ3 w, '~G TO THE R~CC~D PL,T IRE A~RES CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: To the front, rear, and side yard setback requirements of the RSF zoning district for the construction of a new single family residence. 2. ProDerty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 42, "SHORE ACRES", according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota Conditions. The variance is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. The building plot plan shall show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine actual setback. The building plot plan shall be prepared by a registered surveyor. The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures. 3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building permit-to assure compliance with plans presented with variance. 4. The site plan dated March 6, 1991, Zoning Variance No. 89-1, is the approved plan. 5. Front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line. 03/28/91 6. Rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck. 7. West setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure. 8. East setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure. 4. ~.aDse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially- completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: ~"/-L~3.~.u~.~;. /! , 1991. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Don Ashworth, ~ty Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~.~- day of ~~.~ , 1991, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and by Don Ashwort~, 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. DRAFTED BY: Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. 3460 Washington Drive, Suite 202 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 (612) 456-9539 RNK:srn NOTARY PUBLIC - CARVER CO U'::'I;'~ Minnesota DNR - Trails and Waterways:Guide to Shoreland Managemont: Page 1 'of 2 q STATEWIDE SHORELAND ~ STANDARDS V//Table 1: LAKES- (Sewered) Lake Class Lakeshore Lot Width Lot Area Natural Environment Recreational Development General Development Structure (feet) (sq. feet) Setback (fro 125 40,000 150 Non-Lakeshore Impact Lot Width Lot Area Zone (feet) (feet) (sq. feet) 75 125 20,000 75 20,000 75 37.5 75 75 15,000 50 25 75 Table 2: LAKES - (Unsewered) Lake Class Lakeshore Lot Lot Area Struc./Sewer Width (sq. feet) Setback (ft.) (feet) 200 80,000 150/150 Natural Environment Recreational Development 150 40,000 100/75 100 20,000 75/50 General Development Table 3: RIVERS River Class River Shoreland Lot Width Structure Setback (feet) (feet) 300 200 100 200 150 75 250 150 75 Remote Forested Transition 15,000 10,000 Non-Lakeshore Impact Lot Lot Area Zone Width (sq. feet) (feet) (feet) 75 200 80,000 50 150 40,000 37.5 150 40,000 Impact Zone (feet) Sewage Setback (feet) 150 100 100 http ://www. dnr. s tate.mn, us/waters/shoreland_management/standards.html 11/23/98 Minnesota DNR - Trails and Waterways:Guide to Shoreland Management: Page 2 of 2 Agricultural 150 50/100' 25/50* Urban & 75/100' 50/100' 25/50* Tributary 75 75 *Sewered / Unsewered Note: Setbacks and the Shore Impact Zone are measured from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). Back to Intro Forward: Standards ... DtqR home Contents -~, 1998 Mi,mesota Department of Natural Resources. All rights resexwcd. , -- Please.se_n.d.._us your comments. http ://wxx%'. dnr. state.mn.usAvaters/shoreland_management/standards.html 11/23/98 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Setback From: ~qetbac~ (in feet) (4) Right-of-way line of town road~ pub- 20 lic streete~ or other roads or ~ not ~. (c) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and lslld~n~, shall not be placed wi~hl- bluff impact zones. (d) 17onresidential uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs shall be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, fflocated on lots or parcels with ~,ublic waters frontage, shall either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be' substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. J) High water elevations. Structures shall be in accordance with flood placed regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or floodproofed shall be _~etermlned as follows: /~a./) For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three (3) feet above the ~ highest known water level, or three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; b. For rivers and stre~m~, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flaws and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three (3) approaches, technical evaluations shall be done by h qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood pl~i~ areas. If more than one (1) approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities; and c. Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is construed of flood- resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and me~nlcal equipment is placed above tl~e elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and windeiriven waves and debris. (2) Water-oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one (1) water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in section 20-481(a) if this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than two hundred fifty (2§0) square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade at any point. Supp. No. S 1196 m Z i i i i i i NOIJ.¥A3'13 J. NOH:I 31~OH CI3$OdOl:ld m m November 25, 1998 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Wa, ors - ~ Regio~ 1200 Wame~ Rind, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651)772-7910 Fax: (651)772-7977 Ms. Cindy Kirchoff City of Chanha~sen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Request - 9247 Lake Riley Blvd (Lot 42, Shore Acres), Lake Riley (10-2), City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Kirchoff: DNR Waters has reviewed the variance request site plan received 11/23/98 for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. The applicant is requesting variances for lakeshore setback (approximately 64 feet versus 75 feet) and for the minimum lot width for lake access. It also appears that a variance for the impervious surface may be required. We recommend that tho city_ deny the current propQ~l. Specific comments follow: . The applicant needs to show the location of the ordinary high water elevation of 865.3' (NGVD, 1929), as located by a surveyor, so the actual proposed setback can be determined. , The setback of the homes on the adjoining lots should be determined. State guidelines do allow cities to permit a lake, shore setback that meets the average setback of the homes on adjoining lots without a variance. While Chanhassen does not have this exemption language in its Shoreland Management regulations, it is a criteria that is commonly used to help determine the question of hardship. It's my understanding. that the average setback of the neighboring properties is 70 feet; if that is accurate, DNR Waters would expect that setback to be met. . . It appears that the impervious surface exceeds the city's maximum allowed percentage. The applicant should be required to document the proposed impervious surface percentage. We do not see a demonstration of hardship. A slightly smaller house could meet the city's standards and still provide for reasonable use of the property. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: a. The proposed use is reasonable. DN R lnlbnnation: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 · TrY: 612-296-5484. ! -800-657-3929 An Eqt,al ()p~rtunit.x Emplo.x er Who Value.~ Dix-er. it.x Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a .Minimum of I Oq- Po~t-Con,umer Wa,ie Cindy Kirchoff November 25, 1998 Page 2 It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties prevent conformance; economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property. d. The problem must not be created by the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. . In regards to the variance for the lot width required for access, we have no comment as long as: (a) this was a lot of record when the city adopted shoreland regulations, and (b) the lot has been under separate ownership from the adjoining lots since shoreland regulations were adopted. The courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof' to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department is to be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. If the current proposal is approved, copies of the hearing minutes, findings of fact and other relevant documents should also be forwarded. Please contact me at (651) 772-7914 should you have questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist C: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer City of Chanhassen Shoreland File NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -. ARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 City Center Drive PROJECT: Front and Side Yard, Lot Ama, Lot Width & Lakelhore Access Varlancea APPLICANT: Bob and Brlnn Wltt Lake Riley LOCATION: Lot 42, Shorn Acme NOTICE: You are invited to affend a public hearing about a development proposed In your area. The applicants, Brinn and Bob Wltt, are requesting a variance from the 20,000 sq. ff. lakeshore lot area requirement, 90 ff. minimum lot width requirement, 30 foot front yard setback requirement, 10 foot side yard setback requirement, and a 75 foot lake shore access requirement for the construction of a single family home on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 42, Shore Acres. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing Is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Board of Adjustments Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Board discusses proJect. The Board will then make a decision. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit wriffen comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS C/O S. SEKELY 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DALE Kuq-rER 301 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT D REBERTUS 320 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDINA RELOCATION MARY BROWN 1400 S HWY 100 STE 200 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 ROBERT EVANS 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAMELA GUYER 340 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN & PATRICIA SEKELY 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT MURRAY 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCO'i-l' WIRTH 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN SHARKEY 380 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD MADORE 381 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL & GA, IL TERRY 400 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK 9251 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & PATRICIA DOLEJSI 9260 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD PORTER 9261 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RON FRIGSTAD 9270 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARRY BERSHOW 9271 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMIE HEILICHER 9280 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG HALVERSON 9283 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG & KATHRYN HALVERSON 9283 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN & RENEE WILLIAMS 9291 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SC~'~-T' & SUSAN BABCOCK 9351 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDWIN DOMKE 1980 STANICH COURT MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 GORDON & CASEY ALEXANDER 6895 SAND RIDGE ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 GORDON & CASEY ALEXANDER JR. 9225 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RON YTZEN 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FREDERICK PO'I-I'HOFF 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCO'I-I' JOHNSON 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL OLSON 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOY A. SMITH 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUCILLE REMUS '9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD [NHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES F. JESSUP 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 5,5317 DONALD W SI'I-rER 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REG~ MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1998 Chairpemon John~n c~flled the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard John~eon, Carol Watson and Steven Berquist STAFF PRESENT: C~thia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM ~ 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION~ RALPH AND PATRICIA HEGMAN~ 3311 SHORE DRIVE. C~thia Kirchoffpresented the staff report on this item. Berquist asked what the setback is from the drainfield. Kirchoffresponded that a error was made on the site plan and that the drainfield does not exist. Ralph Hegman stated the variance is required so a larger-bedroom can be consmacted on the main level. He explained that the garage only maintains a 7 foot setback and the addition will be maintaining that setback and not encroaching any further. Mr. Hegman stated the addition will look better on the eastern side and will be easier for them~ He indicated that he is willing to work on the erosion control issues. Berquist asked if the proposed addition meets the lakeshore setback. He also questioned what was impeding the addition from being extended towards the lake. Patricia Hegman stated the living room and kitchen arc located on that side of the home. Mr. Hegrnan asked if the Board would like to view pictures of the site. Berquist stated that the hill does not appear to have a 50 percent slope as the staff report states. Kirehoff responded that it does not meet the definition of a bluff. Berquist asked if there is home to the east. Mr. Hegman stated the house has been demolished and is being rebuilt. Bcrquist commented that the dminfield does not exist. · Kirchoffresponded that it was an error on the architect's part so a setback is not required. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes December 22, 1998 Page 2 Berquist commented that city water and sewer is available to the site. Mr. Hegman stated the site plan was drawn off an old plat. Berquist stated that he does not want to see the use intensified became it is currently non- conforming. He explained that the side yard setback ensures privacy. He commented that he understands the request, however, he believes the addition should go up or to the lake. He stated he would like to see the addition meet the 10 foot side yard setback. Hegman stated if the addition is reduced to meet the side yard setback it will be a tunnel and will not be feasible. Berquist stated that he is undecided about this variance. Willard Johnson stated that he feels similar and would like to see the addition meet the required side yard setback. He believes there are other alternatives. Carol Watson stated that there is land, but it is not where they would like to place the addition. She explained that she understands their perspective. Berquist asked if/he applicant had considered purchasing property from the neighbor to the east. Mr. Hegman stated that he has not. Berquist stated that the additional 3 feet would solve the problem. Mr. Hegrnan stated that 3 feet is really trivial. He stated that the neighboring probably will not be subdivided in the future so encroaching into the setback would not be harmful. Berquist stated that it would be mutually beneficial for the applicant to consider purchasing the additional property. Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to table the application. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A REQUE. ST FOR A 7~000 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM TI:IE 15~000 SQ. FT. LOT AREA REQUIREMENT~ A 50 FOOT V..ARIANCE FROM Tm,. 90 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT~ A 5.2 FOOT VARIANCE FROM TIlE NORTI~ 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK Rig. QU~~~ A 7.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM SOUTH 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND A 1 PERCENT VARIANCE Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes December 22, 1998 Page 3 FROM ~ 25 PERCENT MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQU]REMF~ FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION~ JOAN WRIGHT~ 6640 LOTUS TRAII, Kirchoffpresented the staff report on thi.~ item. Berquist asked why a summary of the approved variances was not included within the report. Kirchoff responded that there are too many variances to set forth a fair c0m,rq~ison. Berquist asked if there were any neighbor commOlltS. Kirchoff responded that a few neighbors had contacted the city upon the receipt of the meeting notice. Joan Wright stated that their only other option was to add a second story and that will increase the cost. She explained how they planned to purchase Lots 643 and 673. Berquist asked if the lots were for sale. Wright stated the owners of the property cannot be found and her attorney is tracing the heirs. Berquist asked if the property is purchased variances will still be required. Wright responded that variances will still be required. Kirchoff stated that the property will have 3 front yards. $ohn.~on asked if the applicant knows the property owner. Wright responded that she does not. Watson stated that the applicant should contact Carver County. Wright stated that after much research not much has been found regarding the property owner. Kirchoff asked if the applicant was contacted by the city about purchasing the lots for public facilities. Wright indicated that the city will need a water easement. Johnson asked if the structure will have to main~ a setback from Napa Drive. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes December 22, 1998 Page 4 Kirchoff responded that if the city purchases the vacant lots, a front yard will not be required. Watson stated that they will be just encroaching into a vacant lot. Berquist stated that if the property to the south is owned by a private party it will pay taxes. Watson suggested that the Board wait on voting on the variance until the applicant acquires the property. Wright stated that it will be a long process before the owner is found. Berquist suggested that staff contact the city attomey to determine if the property can be conveyed to Ms. Wright. Watson asked how long it will take before the property can be sold. Johnson stated that if no taxes are paid, Carver County can sell the property. Wright stated that the tax forfeiture has been in the process for some time. Wright asked if the addition could be increased in depth and decreased in width. Kirchoff responded that the addition would have to meet all building code requirements. Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to table the variance application. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:. Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated December 1, 1998. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Johnson moved, Watson seconded the motion to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by C~thia Kirchoff Planner I