1998 01 13 AGENDA
CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1991~ AT 6:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Call to Order
A variance from the front and side yard setback requirements for the construction of a
detached garage located on Lots 1100-1105, 1112, 1116-1117, Carv~ Beach, 6711 Hopi
Road, Daniel Rutledge.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Adjournment
CITY OF
BOA DATE: 1/13/97
CCDATE:
CASE #: 97-12VAR
BT.. Kirchoff.'v
STAFF
REPORT
Z
0
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
A request for an 8 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback and a 10
foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a
detached garage:
6711 Hopi Road
.(Lots 1100, 1102-1106, 1112, 1116-1117, Carver Beach)
Dan Rutledge
6711 Hopi Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(935-5558)
IJ.I
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
~dSb, ~mgte earmty Ke, SIQffQbai
Approximately 12,600 sq. i~.
N/A
$.'
S:
E:
W:
RSF, Single Family Residential
RSF, Single Family Residential
RSF, Single Family Residential
RSF, Single Family Residential
Available to the site
This site contains a single family dwelling. A garage is not
presently on site. The topography contains a steep slope on
the northern portion of the property and mature trees.
Low Density Residential
Lake
~enwood
~ark
Carver
~.. Park
\
Rutledge Variance
January 13, 1998
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-615 states that in single family residential districts the minimum side yard setback is
10 feet.
Section 20-615 states that in single family residential districts the minimum front yard setback is
30 feet.
BACKGROUND
Carver Beach was platted in 1927. This is one of the oldest and most unique residential
neighborhoods in the City. The lots are generally 20 feet in width and about 100 feet in depth
(depending on topography and physical features). The lots, although originally intended for
cottages or summer cabins, have been combined to accommodate single family homes with
attached garages. The size and shape of some of the lots, as well as the topography, makes
locating a home or an accessory structure difficult at times. Hence, many variances have been
granted in this area. Although many of these variances were for lot area, not setbacks. Without
these variances, the owner could not make a reasonable use of the property.
Many variances have been granted in the Carver Beach area to allow a reasonable use of the
property. For instance, 6699 Hopi Road, the neighboring property, has been granted two
variances for additions. A kitchen, living room and garage were added to an existing 24 foot by
20 foot home. The existing location of the home required that the additions encroach into
setbacks. (The home was located on the property line.) The fact that a property is located in
Carver Beach does not guarantee or warrant a variance. Many properties enjoy a reasonable use
while maintaining required setbacks.
The subject property is an irregular shaped lot and does have topographic challenges, however,
an area exists for the garage without a variance. The property is a total of 10 lots combined into
one parcel.
ANALYSIS
This application requests two variances, one from the 10 foot side yard setback and the other
from the 30 foot front yard setback. The applicant would like to construct a 26 foot by 28 foot
(728 sq. ft.) accessory structure. There currently is a small 74 sq. ft. shed and a 2-story single-
family home on the property. The shed will be demolished prior to the construction of the
garage. The two lots which front Hopi Road are the proposed location of the accessory structure.
The home is located on the remaining lots. The extreme northern portion of the property
contains a steep slope and mature trees. The two lots which abut Hopi Road are relatively fiat.
Rutledge Variance
January 13, 1998
Page 3
SDE YARD VARIANCE
The variance from the side yard setback is requested because the two lots are only 40 feet in
width and the proposed garage is 28 feet wide. The garage's width could be reduced to 20 feet
and the depth could be increased from 26 feet. This is an average size for a double garage and
this would still allow a reasonable use of the property. (Actually, the proposal is larger than
some of the homes in Carver Beach.) According to their surveys most neighboring garages
range from 12 feet to 24 feet in width.
Building Code Requirements for the North Wall -Side Yard Setback
The Uniform Building Code requires that exterior walls of less than three feet be of one-hour
fire-resistive construction with no openings. The UBC permits overhangs to extend one-third the
distance to the property line or a maximum of 12' into the area where openings are not permitted.
Should the garage be constructed where indicated on the submitted survey, no overhangs would
be permitted on north wall.
FRONT YARD V ~A.~R!. A~C~
The applicant is also requesting a variance from the 30 foot front yard setback. This property has
two front yards because it abuts both Pawnee Drive and Hopi Road. The accessory structure
must meet the 30 foot front yard setback along Hopi Road. The applicant contends that the
garage cannot be shifted back to this setback because of a pine tree. There are two trees in the
vicinity of the proposal. One is located directly east of the existing shed, which will not be
removed. The other is just east of the proposal. (This tree appears to be dead or dying). Staff
would like to see the garage placed at the 30 foot setback for two reasons. Firstly, the streets in
Carver Beach are more narrow than streets in newer subdivisions, therefore, ample parking
should be provided on private property. Having a 30 foot driveway should alleviate problems
associated with on-street parking. Secondly, there are no physical or topographic features
prohibiting the applicant from shifting the garage to the 30 foot setback. The depth of the lot is
sufficient for this garage, the physical surroundings do not prohibit alternate placement, and the
shape and topography do not limit the garage's location. Therefore, a hardship does not exist.
The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to place a 20 foot wide double garage on the property.
The City Council recently approved a zoning ordinance amendment that prohibits encroachments
into setbacks that have been granted variances. In this situation, the eaves on the garage would
not be permitted to encroach into the "new" setback. If the variances are approved, the overhang
on the north side must be a distance of two feet from the property line and there shall be no
overhang into the new 20 front yard setback. This will reduce the width of the garage to 26 feet,
however.
Rutledge Variance
January 13, 1998
Page 4
Staff believes that the applicant should maintain the 10 and 30 foot setbacks and that a hardship
does not exist.
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:
a.
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 surmtmdings, 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 recognize 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.
Finding: The applicant can place a 2-stall, 20 foot wide garage on the property within the
setbacks. That is an average garage. Therefore, the applicant has a reasonable use of the
property. The proposed 728 sq. ft. garage is larger than some of the homes in Carver Beach.
b.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification-
Finding: The majority of the homes meet the required setbacks. Although Carver Beach
does pose challenges, the majority of the structures built after the ordinance do maintain the
required setbacks.
C.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The proposal is not based upon the desire to increase the value of the land, but is
based on the need for a garage.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created. The applicant does have an oppommity to
build a garage in the required setbacks.
ee
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood ia which the parcel is located.
Rutledge Variance
January 13, 1998
Page 5
Finding:. The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land.
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.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair light and air to adjacent properties or
impair property values. However, if the garage is only placed 20 feet fi.om the property line,
the owner may not have sufficient parking and may have to park on the already narrow Hopi
Road.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the request for an 8 foot variance from the 10 side
yard setback and a 10 foot variance fi.om the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an
accessory structure based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of a variance.
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a detached garage within the setbacks."
Should the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve the request, the following conditions shall
apply:
1. The garage shall maintain the natural drainageway.
2. There shall be no encroachments, including eaves or overhangs, into the new setbacks.
3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of a garage.
4. Exterior walls and overhangs shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
5. Address numbers complying with Chanhassen City Policy #29-1992 shall be installed on the
street facing the street.
Rutledge Variance
January 13, 1998
Page 6
AT'FACHMENTS
1. Application and Letter
2. Section 20-615, Lot requirements and setbacks
3. Site Plan'
4. Staff Revised Site Plan
5. Memorandum from Steve Kirchman to Cindy Kirchoff dated January 7, 1998
6. Public hearing notice and property owners
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REm,=_~,,.. ,r.~
DEC 1997
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: ~.j c, ~.
TELEPHONE (Daytime) ~,~ I~-
OWNER: ~ a /'-,, ~'-~
ADDRESS: ~'- '7 / /
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ /~ ~' ~--~
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-slx full size .folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
TOTAL ACREAGE '
WETLANDS PRESENT
YES ,'~ NO
PRE~ENT ZONING
REQUEETED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST '~
extension for developme~~w..
of-Fee dw r
Date
Date
Received on '~~ q? Fee P~d iCJ VH ~ 7 R~'~ No. ~J %
should ~n~ ~ff for a ~py of the ~ mpo~ whl~ will ~ aval~ on Friday prior to the m~lng.
~~, a ~py of the mpo~ will ~ mall~ to the ~pll~s add~
This application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly pdnted and must be accompanied by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer wtth the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
ce, determinatlon of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant wtthin ten business days of application.
'Th'~ is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for 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 attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
cow of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of T~le or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
1his application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
! will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
undemtand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility 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~ge. ,
'l'he city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city Is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
Daniel Rutledge
6711 Hopi Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 401-9145
CITV OF CHANHASSEN
"" '-'- -"':- I:/ED
DEC g 3 1997
December 23, 1997
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attention: To The Board of Adjustment
Dear Sir;
The information below is in regards to the variances that I'm
requesting.
2 Variances
- Lot shape, size and grades.
Varianc~ ~ ·
1st Sld
- ' e '~E~da'from 10' to 2'-0" s~t back width of lot 40'.
- Remove shed and add sidewalk to house.
- Large pine to remain.
- Roof drainage off front and rear of new garage.
2nd Variance - Front yard from 30' to 20' set back.
- New garage would line up with the neighbor's buildings.
- We wold have larger front lawn and garden area.
- Back yard is to steep to garden or mow.
- Less hard surface.
- Future addition to the house would be to the front,
approximately 8' to 10', making front yard smaller.
If you have any questions regarding this please give me a call at
935-5558.
Sincerely,
Daniel Rutledge
§ 20.595 CHANIJ_ASSEN CITY CODE
b. For accessory structures, three (S) stories/forty (40) feet.
(7) The minimm 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)
fee~
(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. 20-696. 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.
Seas. 20-597-20-610. Reserve&
ARTICLe. XIL '~F" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-611. Intent.
The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivis/ans.
(Ord. No. 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 ch/ldron.
(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 9f ~hi~ chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96)
Sec. 20.613. Permitted accessory use~
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 cou.rl;.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) 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.
(2)
The minimum lot frontage is 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 CHAN~EN CITY CODE
illustrated below.
Lot, Where Frontage la
Measured At 8etbaok Line
L
(3)
The minimum lot depth ia 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.
Neck I Flag Iota
Fron Lot Line
(4)
(5)
100#Lot Width
The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)
percent.
The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, ~ (30) feet.
Supp. No. 9 1212
ZONING § 20-632 '
(6)
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
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 shall 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 from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated
as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the
point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot
minimum 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, 7-24-9§)
Editor's note~Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-61§(6)b. pertaining to
accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-61§(7)b., subsequent to amend-
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 provisions 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.
ARTICI.E XIH. '~1-4" 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), 12-1§-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
· .'L.. '.~.~?''. ' · '-~."
,': ..' · .~,
-.. -..T.-. ' ..~.: .. · %.'..'.~'- ~
· ' ~'~' ~. ~ ' ' ', ~.1'. -~ ·
"" ,-: ' '"';' ~" ' ' ~'."...~' ~ 4'.
i
~T-~¥~. · . ~.~'" . ·. ·
'L ~ ::~ ' ~
'~1 '" '. .'. '
~ "'. :--' ':. :' "
~v'e. '-,g.~ . ' -. ,'.
'. K. I,,,:_ ' '.,, r' .
". I~'.1 '1, ." . t;
°1~ .~.'_ · ': .
I ·,.. , o .
:, :-.'?
· .~.,~,'.i ' :": .".." 'o
...'.%...~ ... .-'~. . · . · .,
.&' .o...; , ~. .- -
'.',-' "~.~ . ' ~' t- .'
~.. ,.- .
~.., ~..
·
'
· ~. ~ ~''
· ? , ·.
· .
.
.
·
.'..! . .
. ', ',
· , .
·
..
· 2. .!
· ... ·
',.
·
'
...... ·
. ~,.. ~. ~'~
.~, ~'.;';',.~:. .:~.-~,- ,
"~ 4 ~~ '' '1'
· . o -
, . '~ -. ,.
~ ..T ! ...''.
..".~ ~k. ~' .~..~.:'-.; .':.'"' ;: , ~
~...~.,,~ . .-~.. ,
....4..
: ;'.~i:; .~,.'. ~_ '..'. ~ .
.:. /,. ' '.,'..... .,.
· ~.:;,~.!,,!~.~ ~. . ~....~
· ..I ' ,. J. · ·
.., .....,. ..
~ ' .~.. , · ...-
'~ ~o~'~ · ', ..' .
· ,1 ..", '.. , ~ ·
~:.~.~.:~ "~. ~,'.'~% · '-, ,~-- . ..~
...r; .,~: ~,.~.' j "~4' , - ... . ' '
· ';..,.., .: ~ . ['q;...
?; · ,. .
· ' ' ~' ~,~.
".~'j: .-~ ~. ~ - . .' .....~ ~
~ ,
¥; y. : ,.': ilL .' ': · ~ '. ~
~ ~ 'ir ?~ ' ""' · ~. ' ¢. "'
·. ~ ..' ~ -~.
.: ';- ~;. ~ ' ..
,. .~ ~ ·
·I ~~ -'. .~
·
'-~ %" ., . .:
· ,'t, 4; J" '"' 5,
. .~
: ~' -.. ~ ,,,,'
"I'J '
,-. -, . ! -.". ~%" ·
:;. - .~...'. . . . :, ,..' . ,,.
'. .: ..~. '~ ·.. -. · ,.
· ,. ·· .,- · '..- .. :'.
: ..,,;,~ ,
"~' , .
.¢.]', . · , .~ .:,
. · ·
., '.o
·
~ .
·
...
· . ..
;. ,"
Z
· .
CITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 93:7-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ~- {~ 'l~/~
DATE: January 7, 1998
SUBJECT: 97-12 VAR (6711 Hopi Road, Mr. Dan Rutledge)
I was asked to review the variance proposal stamped -exit o~ cmm~xsmm, m~cmrvnm, DlgC 2 3
19 9 7, cauam~s~ P~ma'x~ DEPT.' for the above referenced project.
Analysis:
Building code requirements. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) classifies the garage as a U- 1 occupancy
and provides requirements for fire-resistive construction and opening protection for exterior walls within
three feet of the property line.
UBC Table 5-A requires exterior walls less than three feet from the property line be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction with no openings. The UBC permits overhangs to extend one-thirdthe distance to the
property line or a maximum of 12" into the area where openings are not permitted. Should the garage be
constructed where indicated on the submitted survey, no overhangs would be permitted on the north wall.
The UBC has no requirements for fire-resistive construction when exterior walls and overhangs am greater
than three feet from the property line.
Address numbers. The UBC and Chanhassen City Policy # 29-1992 requires address numbers at least 5"
high be placed on the garage wall facing the street.
Recommendations:
Should the variance be granted, the following conditions should be included:
1. Exterior walls and overhangs shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
2. Address numbers complying with Chanhassen City Policy #29-1992 shall be installed on the garage
wall facing the street.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Tuesday, January 13, 1998
at 6:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
PROJECT:
DEVELOPER:
LOCATION:
Side and Front Yard
Setback Variance
Dan Rutledge
6711 Hopl Road
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area.
applicant, Dan Rutledge, is requesting an 8 foot variance to the 10' side yard setback and a 10 foot
variance from the 30' front yard setback for the construction of a detached garage on property zoned
RSF and located at 6711 Hopi Road.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,
the Board 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 of Adjustments discusses project. The Board will then
make a decision on the project.
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
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
'GERALD DOUCHER
V~ESTER N DRIVE
ASSEN, MN 55317
DARIN & ALLISON GACHNE
6670 DEERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
AARON & MEGAN GORDON
6650 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN JOHNSON
6694 NEZ PERCE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EVELYN A. REIFENBERGER
6680 DEERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAVID G HOLUB
6670 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAN WOITALLA
6689 NEZ PERCE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST
C./O CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 600 EAST
4TH STREET
CHASKA, MN 55318-2184
DONALD SENNES
6680 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317
MICHELLE COOK
6686 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
ALBERT OTrEROAHL
6715 NEZ PERCIE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DONALD SENNES
6680 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317
TAMI & JEFF BRAIEDY
850 WESTERN DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GARY o~-rERDAHL
6691 DEERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL WEGLER
6630 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
LAYNE BECKMAN
6679 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BLAISE & KAY WATSON
750 QUIVER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
VERMONT ISAAC. SON
6640 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
CRAIG ANDERSON
6683 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ANDREW CLEMENS
6687 DEERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PETER LUSTIG
6699 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
F LIEBLE CO
C/O ALBERT o~-rERDAHL 6715 NEZ PERCE
DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CITY OF CHA~~EN
690 COU..I.~=ER DRIVE
C~ASSEN, MN 55317
MARTHA NYGREN
665O LOTUS TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM PEDEN
6687 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BRUCE JOHN SCHURMANN
116 ELM STREET NORTH
LESTER PRAIRIE, MN 55354
KEITH GUNDERSON
6660 LOTUS TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CITY OF CHANH~SEN
690 COULTE~R. DR
CHAN~HASSEN, MN 55317
.-
~..
ERIC MEESTER
6610 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHRIS/CYNTHIA ANDERSON
6680 LOTUS TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHRIS ANDERSON
6680 LOTUS TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARYKAY HOGUE
6690 NEZ PERCE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
GARY J. HOFFMAN
860 HIAWATHA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDY BORASH
6725 NEZ PERCE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT WIEST
840 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG & MONICA KIFFMEYER
6710 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL WOITALLA
6712 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PETER KORDONOWY
6711 NEZ PERCE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
AL OTTERDAHL
6715 NEZ PERCE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CARRIE & BRIAN DETERMAN
800 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KEITH M. VOLK
790 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
.-
DAN RUTLEDGE
6711.,.J::lO F~i' ROAD
..CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM & SHARON WOLFE
6699 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM MOREl-lO
6727 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
LARRY BARRETT
6741 HOPI ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ALEX ESS
6890 LOTUS TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MRS. ELDON DEGLER
6711 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BRUCE JOHANSSON
6701 MOHAWK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TODD FROSTAD
6728 LOTUS TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAULA VELTKAMP
6724 LOTUS TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KENNETH LUCAS
6735 NEZ PERCE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANGLE WILTZ
841 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOMAS RAYMOND
834 CREE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW & NICOLE SIEMENS
6780 YUMA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MELVIN HERRMANN
795 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARTIN JENSEN
770 CREE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD SPARTZ
777 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFERY KING
767 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREGORY J. CARLSON
760 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TODD F RO~3'AD'~
6728..[Jg'TUS TRAIL
C/H/~NHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: C~thia Kirchoff, Planner I; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner H
A REQUEST FOR A 34 FOOT VARIANCE FROM TFIE 75 FOOT SHORELAND
SETBACK AND 7 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE 25 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY
HOME~ STEPHEN LONGMAN~ 11491 LANDING ROAD~ EDEN PRAIRrE AND
GORDON AND CASEY ALEXANDEI~ 8518 CARDIFF LANE~ EDEN PRAIRIE.
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Stephen Longrnan, the contractor, stated that this proposal combines two, 50 foot lots, one of
which has a shoreland variance, which has since expired. He mentioned that in the cities of
Minnetonka and Orono a sight line variance is allowable. He stated that the maple tree is
important to the owners and that, according to the landscape contractor, it can be saved. Mr.
Longman indicated that he and the owners are willing to compromise for the home placement
and that he believes that this is a reasonable home plan with a 3 stall garage found on most new
homes.
Gordon Alexander stated that he would like to see a solution that pleases all. He mentioned that
he disagrees that the maple tree has little or no value, however, he stated he is not an expert in
trees.
Mike Domke, 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard, stated that he lives adjacent to the proposal. He
indicated that the home is nice and that it will look good in the neighborhood, however, he is
concerned how the drainage and the retaining wall will affect his property.
Linda Jansen, 240 Eastwood Court, stated that this proposal will create dramatic drainage
changes. She stated that on her property four oak trees were lost because of construction. She
explained that she cautions making a decision that will affect the lake but save a tree. Ms. Jansen
expressed concern over locating a large home close to the lake without screening. She stated that
the wildlife arid vegetation should be protected. Ms. Jansen explained that locating the house
further from the lake will still enable a house to be built as other one level homes exist on the
adjacent properties.
Longman stated that they are willing to work with the neighbor with the retaining walls.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
November 5, 1997
Page 2
Steve Berquist stated that he tends to look at variances as why not let them take place rather than
why should they take place. He believes that owners should be able to do what they want with
their property within reason, but he does not see himself voting in favor of this variance. He
explained that he realizes that variances have been granted on Lake Riley Boulevard, however,
the vision of the area is important because the lake must be protected. He questioned why the
deck is only 12 feet by 9 feet on a 4,500 sq. ft. home
Alexander stated that they have a large deck on their current home and they do not use it.
Berquist questioned if they had a proposal for a future deck.
Longrnan stated that the Board can require that the deck not be permitted to be enlarged in the
future.
Berquist stated that he is not aware of the impact on the surrounding trees. He questioned if both
lots 30 and 31 were included on the variance approved in 1996.
Kirchoff responded that only lot 30 had the variance approved.
Carol Watson indicated that she would like to see the house fit in the buidable area and
impervious surface reduced because the area is large enough for a home.
Alexander stated that the impervious surface will be cut by the relocation of the house.
Watson questioned what the variance will be if the house is relocated and what are the major
problems.
Kirchoff responded that a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback and a 2 percent
variance from the 25 percent maximum impervious surface requirement will be required if the
house is relocated to the 30 foot front yard setback at Lake Riley Boulevard.
Watson asked if the drainage could be placed as a condition of approval.
Sharmin A1-Jaff explained that the natural drainage way needs to be maintained.
Willard Johnson stated that he would like to see the house located in the setbacks and maintain a
25 percent impervious surface coverage.
Watson stated that she could live with the 7 foot variance from the shoreland setback and the 2
percent variance from the 25 percent impervious surface requirement.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
November 5, 1997
Page 3
Domke stated that he reviewed the plans. He believes that requiring the home to be located at the
30 foot setback would negatively affect his lot by entrapping his backyard and rerouting the water
flow. He indicated that he has plans to remove his garage and attach it to his house because it is
currently an unsafe situation.
Johnson questioned if he has plans to attach the garage to the home.
Domke indicated that he did. He believes that the houses should line up and be consistent with
the neighborhood because it would look better rather then placing them in a zigzag fashion.
Berquist stated that moving the house to 30 foot setback would kill the tree. He questioned what
are the benefits to the situation.
Kirchoff stated that runoff into the lake and the hard surface coverage would be decreased.
Johnson stated that the house should be placed within the buildable area.
Berquist stated thatche wquld~o compromise.
Longman stated that the lot is narrow and has a steep slope. He mentioned that they did not want
to redesign the home again. Mr. Longman believes that this is a difficult site to design a home
for and that they should have a reasonable use of the land like the neighbors.
Johnson stated that they applicant does have reasonable use of the land and that the house is too
large for the property.
Ron Ytzen, 6227 Lake Riley Boulevard, stated that he is a neighbor and although the home is
nice, it is too large for the lot. He stated that the natural state and the green area should be
maintained around the lake.
Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to close the public hearing.
Berquist indicated that he is reluctant to approve the requested variance, however, he would be
willing to approve a 6 or 7 foot variance with the requirement that the property only have 23
percent impervious surface to mitigate the consequences of the setback variance.
Johnson stated that he believes that the house should stay in the boundaries.
AI-Jaff stated that the 2 percent impervious surface coverage was an estimate for the staff revised
site plan.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
November 5, 1997
Page 4
Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to deny the 34 foot variance from shoreland
setback and the 7 percent variance from the 25 percent impervious surface requirement but
approved a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback with the condition that only 23
percent of the lot be covered with a hard surface to mitigate the consequences of the shoreland
setback for the construction of a single family home with the following conditions:
o
The property owner shall abandon the existing well pursuant to the Minnesota
Department of Health and connect the new dwelling to city water.
,
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.
.
The existing driveway shall be removed and restored with sod. No additional impervious
surface shall be permitted to access the lower garage on the southerly side of the house.
4. The applicant must obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures on Lots 30 and 31.
5. Type 111 erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation is restored.
6. The natural drainageway shall be maintained on the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTE. S: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting dated September 23, 1997. All voted in favor and
the motion carried
Johnson moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff
Planner I
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 13, 1998
Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard $ohnson, Steven Berquist and Nancy Mancino
STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
A REQUEST FOR AN 8 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD AND A
REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE~ DANIEL RUTLEDGE~ 6711
HOPI ROAD.
C~thia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Daniel Rutledge stated that a 20 foot wide garage is too small. He explained his plan for two, ten
foot wide doors on the 28 foot wide garage as this will allow the vehicle doors to be opened
without hitting the other vehicle in the garage. Mr. Rufledge explained that he variance from the
30 foot front yard setback was needed because this would allow for more green space and a
garden area. He mentioned that his vehicle is 17 feet in length and even if the garage was placed
at the 30 foot setback, an additional vehicle could not be parked in the driveway. Mr. Rufledge
stated that the neighbors do not oppose this proposal because this is an investment for the future
property owner.
Sharon Wolfe, 6699 Hopi Road, stated that the proposal would not affecting her sight line.
Steven Berquist asked if the applicant had considered purchasing Lot 1118 so that a larger garage
could be constructed.
Rutledge responded that the previous owner did pose that question to the neighbor, but they did
not wish to sell.
Berquist commented that a potential buyer would probably value an attached garage rather than a
detached garage located a distance from the home.
Rutledge stated that an attached garage is not an option and that he has not approached the
owner.
Berquist stated that he believes that a future owner of the neighboring property will be affected
by the proposal even though the current owner will not. He explained that he must weigh all
issues into his decision.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
January 13, 1998
Page 2
Wolfe reassured the Board that the proposed garage will not affect her because she has natural
screening.
Rutledge stated that the proposed garage will line up with the adjacent properties' garages.
Willard Johnson stated that he would like to see a 30 foot setback along Hopi Road. He believes
that a width of 22 feet is sufficient for a garage.
Rutledge responded that he will only build it 26 feet wide because he does not want to build a
fire wall.
Nancy Mancino stated that Carver Beach is wonderful eclectic neighborhood and that many
variance have had to be granted in order for homes to be built. She stated that there is no reason
that the garage could not be placed 30 feet fi'om the property line. She explained that a smaller
two-car garage may be difficult to get two vehicles parked.
Berquist stated that he is inclined to approve a 2 foot variance to build a 22 foot wide garage with
a 30 foot front yard setback. He stated that he must make a decision that make sense not what
necessarily suits the applicant.
Berquist moved, Johnson seconded the motion to close the public hearing.
Berquist moved, Mancino seconded the motion to deny the 8 foot variance from the 10 foot side
yard setback and the 10 foot variance fi'om the 30 foot front yard setback and approve a 2 foot
variance from the side yard setback for the consmmfion of a garage. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mancino questioned if the City Code regulates the depth of an accessory structure.
Kirchoff responded that only square footage is regulated
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berquist moved to approve the minutes of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated November 5, 1997. Mancino abstained. All voted in
favor and the motion carded.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Cyn~a Kirchoff
Planner I