1998 06 30 AGENDA
CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAI~q
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1998 AT 6:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
CITY COUNCIL CI~~ERS
A request for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the consm~tion of
an enclosed porch, 8372 Stone Creek Drive, Lot 24, Block 3, Creekside Addition, Klm
Bcauclair (applicant) and Chris & Craig Wint~ (owne~).
.
A request for an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the
construction of a deck, 240 Eastwood Corot (Lot 8, Block 1, Lake Riley Woods), Linda &
Bill Jansen.
3. Approval of Minutes.
Adjournment
· CITY OF
BOA DATE:6/30/98
CCDATE:
CASE #: 98-5 VAR
BT.. Kirchoffw
Z
<1:
0
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
A request for an 11 foot vadance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of an enclosed porch.
LOCATION:
Stone Creek Drive
(Lot 24, Block 3, Creek, side Addition)
APPLICANT:
Klm Beauclair
3120 68th Street E.
Inver Grove Heights, MN
455-3247
(Contractor)
Chris & Craig Wint~
8372 Stone Creek Drive
797-4901
(Owner)
Ltl
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL'CHARACI~R:
RSF, Single Family
Approxhnately 20,000 sq. ·
N/A
N:
S:
E:
W:
RSF, Single Family Resi~
RSF, Single Family Residential
RSF, Single Family Residemial
RR, Rural Residential
Available to the
The site is a wooded lot near the westerly Bluff Creek
m'buta_,3r. A single family home with aa attached garage
exists on the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
iLcd/ce
VARIA
~ker Bird
REC
Lyman
Beauclair Variance
Juen 24, 1998
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-615 states that in single family residential districts the minimum rear yard setback is
30 feet.
Section 20-908 states that decks may encroach 5 feet into a required rear yard setback.
Section 20-908 states that stairs and necessary landings may encroach 6 feet into a rear yard
setback provided that it does not extend above the entrance floor of the building.
BACKGROUND
Creekside Addition was platted in 1995. The extreme southern portion ofthia subdivision is
substantially wooded. According to the subdivision conditions of approval, this lot was to be
custom graded because of the physical features. The house maintains a 50 foot setback from
Bluff Creek on the north. The existing home fits tightly on the lot.
The applicant proposes to construct a 12 foot by 14 foot (168 sq. fL) deck and a. 12 foot by 14
foot enclosed porch in the rear yard. The deck and accompan~ landing meets all setbacks
because of the position of the home on the lot. The enclosed porch encroaches into the setback
11 feet.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback for the construction of an
enclosed porch. This proposed porch extends 11 feet into the rear yard setback. The setback
line essentially slices the porch in half diagonally. The steps/landing for the deck extend 6 feet
into the setback, however, the zoning ordinance permits thi~ encroachmenL Decks are permitted
to encroach 5 feet into a rear yard setback. The deck maintains a 28 foot setback, so it complies
with ordinance. However, the zoning ordinance does not permit the encrroachment of enclosed
porches because they have the potential to be utilized for living space. The applicant contends
that without the closed porch the home owners have a hardship because the house was built for
the deck and porch addition.
Staff believes that the home owner created the hardship by selecting and building this home plan.
The home just fits within the permissible building area of the lot. It is so large that it cannot be
situated any other way without encroaching into a required setback. Ultimately, it is the owner's
responsibility to review all zoning regulations prior to constructing a home. The owners chose
the plan, therefore, they created the situation and the hardship. The application letter states that
the living space will be underutilized if the variance is not approved. The proposed deck can still
Beauclair Variance
Juen 24, 1998
Page 3
be built. Therefore, the home owners can still have access to and utilize the rear yard without the
porch.
This proposal does not warrant the granting of a variance because a hardship is not present. A
hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. 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. The owners have a reasonable
use and they can construct a deck while maintaining the required setback. The inability to
construct a enclosed porch does not constitute a hardship.
If this variance is approved it will negatively affect an adjoining property. The layout of
Creekside Addition is such that a vacant lot lies directly behind the subject property. That is, the
subject property's rear yard adjoins the neighboring property's side yard (See Attachment 5).
Therefore, the granting this variance will be injurious to another property. When a home is
constructed on the neighboring property, the house plan will have to take into consideration the
reduced setback that the subject property will be maintaining, if the variance is approved. The
two homes will be placed a closer distance than would be normally found in this situation.
The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, therefore, staff does not recommend approval.
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 enfomement 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~!?e 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 has a reasonable use of the property. A single family home and
attached garage exist on the property. Furthermore, there is an oppommity to construct a
deck on the property without a variance. The shape or size of the lot does not prohibit a
enclosed porch from being constructed, the house pad placement caused the constriction.
All of the homes in this neighborhood maintain the required setbacks. This variance would
depart downward from the existing standards.
Beauclair Variance
Juen 24, 1998
Page 4
b.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, gen~ffiy, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which thin variance is based are applicable to all properties
in the RSF zoning district.
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 puttx~e of this request is to consm~ a dosed pomh. The outcome of this
change will increase the value of the parcel.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a serf-created hardship.
Finding: The hardshi. 'p is serf-created. This applicant_has the opportmdty to cxmsmmt a
deck that maintains the required setback.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The variance will pea'mit a ~amcRn~ to 1~ located into a required setback
potentially infi/nging on the adjoining future propmy owner's com¢orC
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 iRlbSt~ltially diminish or imp. air property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The variation will enable a smmmm to maintain a roar yard setback that is much
less than what would be found in erbar properties in the RSF zoning district. The deck will
most certainly affect the properly to the west.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion:
'q'he Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the request ~98-5 for a 11 foot variance from the
30 rear yard setback for the consmm~on of an enclosed porch based uixm the findings pres~ in
the staff report and the following:
Beauclair Variance
Juen 24, 1998
Page 5
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a deck within the required setbacks."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application and Letter
2. Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks
3. Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
4. Lot Survey and Deck and Porch Elevations
5. Creekside Addition (Lots 24-26, Block 3)
6. Public hearing notice and property owners
g:kplan~kkboakbeauclair 98-5 var.d~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
TELEPHONE (Daytime)
l.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Re.z~ning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
OWNER: C[,,'~
ADDRESS:. o° ~'?;2.
TELEPHONE:
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appe~
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X Es~r Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
(($5~/CUP/SPRNAGNAR/WAP/Metes
~ Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $"'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 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
'* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NC) rE - When mMtiple 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 $c, uu,., r~'~ ,; O,,,.~' ¢~r~;~','o~
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
i
i · · i
·
PRESENT ZONING /'
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
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.
·
This Is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am rasponslble 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 ~ached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this applic~tion. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibllity studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceec~ w~h the study. The documents and Information i have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I 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 retumed to City Hall Records.
.!
.
SigNature of"Applicant Date
Signature of- It'-ee Owner
Application Received on
Date
· The applicant should contact staff for e copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting, ff not eonta~ed, e ennv nf ibp rennet tulll ha mailed In fha erie, lie, erie's I~t,h,'lee, le
3120
RECEIVED
JUN 1998
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
June 3, 1998
..
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Cynthia:
I am a contractor and on behalf of my clients; Chris and Craig Winter of 8372 Stone Creek Dr., I am
applying for a vadance for the addition of a screened porch and a deck.
Please have the city compile a list of property owners. I can be billed directly for the cost.
Enclosed is application, ~e~.~x. copies of the plans, ~ and plot plans.
We are requesting a variance for 5.5 feel. The owners do not currently have a deck. Provisions were
made at the time of building for the addition of a deck in the proposed location. Without a variance, a
usable porch/deck can not be built. Without the add'dion of the porciVdec~ the owners would incur an
undue hardship, because the original design of the house included provisions for a deck/porch
expansion. Without the addition part of the homes IMng space is under ublized and creates a problem
for future owners.
The property is heav~ wooded and the addition would not block supply of light or air to adJacent
Sincerely,
Kim Beauclair
President
§ 20-595
CHAKHASSEN CITY CODE
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
(7) The minlmUlll driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet.
·
b. I'f th~' 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-§96. 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.
Secs. 20-597--20-610. Reserved.
ARTICLE XIL ,~1~, SINGLE.FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-611. Intent.
The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions.
(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 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 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 uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Garage.
Supp. No. 9 1210
ZONING
§ 20-615
(2) Storage
(3) Swimming pool.
(4) T~_ n'~,~'c0urt.
(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), 12.15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12,
11-12-96)
State law referencc Conditional uses, M~S. § 462.3595.
Sec~ 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements sbn11 be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
(1)
The lnlnlmnm lot area is ~ thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots,
the lot area requirements shall be met a.emr 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 cu/vilinear street sections shall be ninety (90)
feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually
No. 9 1211
§ 20-615
illustrated below.
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Lots Whsr, Frontig, Is
M,ssured At Seth&ok Line
!
&
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.
· Neck I Flag Iota
Fron Lot Line
100slot Width
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)
percent.
(5). The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
Supp. No. 9 1212
c. For aide yards, tan (10) feel .
(6) The setba_elrs for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows:
a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard sh~11 be the lot line nearest the
"'public' ~t~of-way th,t provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to
be located opposite from the front lot line with the 1-~n~irlln~ ex'posllire8 t21~ted
as aide lot lines. On neck lo13 the front yard setback ,h~ll be measured at the
point nearest the front lot line-where the lot achieves a eno-hundred-foot
mlnlmllm width.
b. For rear yards, ~hl,ty (30) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
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), 12-1586; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-1488; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90;
Ord. No. 145, § 2, 48-91; 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 81;ructures; such provision were-contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend-
ment of the section by Ord. Bio. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included
as amending § 20-615(7)b.
~ec. 20~16. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "RSI~' 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, ~12-90)
Secs. 20.617--20-630. Reserved.
ARTICI.I~. l/III. ~4" l~x~) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-631. Intent.
The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attach~ 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 '~,-4" District:
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) Twmfamily dwellings.
Supp. Bio. 9 1213
ZONING § 20-908
increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required
for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-908. "Yard regulations.
The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measurements
shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question, subject
to the following qualifications:
(1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed.
(2) A yard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provisions
of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for another
building.
(3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard
setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provided,
.. however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks.
(4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets.
Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street.
(5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances granted from-a
required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments):
a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line,
cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance
not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not
exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary lan~iggs~
may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing
shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies,
open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet;
unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and
shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be
permitted by conditional use permit.
b. The above-named features may project into any required yard adjoining an
interior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above.
c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence on
February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location
provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a
ten-foot minimum front yard.
d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the following are permitted
in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory structures,
toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balconies,
breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one-story bay
windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet.
Supp. No. 10 1233
It
FOR: CLAUSEN &: ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
!
I
!
%
%
%
qj2~
"%,
DIAG: ~sX LC, = f15.2"/
~ DENO~S PROPOS~ ri
~1011.2 DENO~S ~IS~NG ~VA~.
DIREC~ ~ DRAINAGE.
D~O~S
~ D~O~S ~ HUB AT 11 FOOT ~SET.
'--
!
/
/
hereby certify that this is a true and corn
a sur~ey of the boundaries of the above desc
location of all buildings, if any, thereon.
;f any, from or on said land.
I'1,,,f---,4 4.1,,,;,, //~.~.J.~ ,4 .... ~c /l?q?/,.. r"Y"'~nn~ LJ:.., .,.,&,.. l: ..... kw,., ,'')")L
Lot 24, Block 3, CREEKSIDE ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota.
Denotes Iron Man. Datum: Assumed Job No. 96675HS BA~ Disk73
i I
lU
0
/
/
F
/ /
iI
I.l.I
I I
F-
<C
F-
L,J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Ii~RD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Tuesday, June 30, t998
at 6:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 City Center Drive
PROJECT: Rear Yard Setback Variance
APPLICANT: Craig & Chris Winter
LOCATION' 8372 Stone Creek Drive
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development propc~sed in your area.
The applicant, Craig and Chds Winter, is requesting an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard
setback for the construction of a closed porch located at 8372 Stone Creek Drive.
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 headng 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
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published In the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1998.
..
OSMONICS, INC.
5951 CLEARWATER DRIVE
MINNETONK~ MN 55343
DAN CHUMBLER
2001 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CRAIG & CHRISTINE WINTER
8372 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT INC
450 COUNTY ROAD D EAST
LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117
BOB & CINDY EGELSTON
2018 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MCKNIGHT & ASSOCIATES
14093 COMMERCE AVE NE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
HOMER F. SUTFER
1913 CREEKVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARVIN & CAROLE LUECK
2019 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL & LAURA WOELFEL
1924 CREEKVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN WING
2034 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BRUCE & KANDREA JELLE
1927 CREEKVIEWCOURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES D. OLSON
2050 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOMAS BARR
1944 CREEKVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CONLIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
11840 ISLETON AVENUE NO
GRANT, MN 55082
STEVEN & DARLA YERKES
2030 RENAISSANCE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HAROLD E. SCHRUM
8297 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
AGHA TAHIR M KHAN
2040 RENAISSANCE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JERRY CORNELL
8345 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT LAWSON
2041 RENAISSANCE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HESTIA HOMES INC
4885 CO RD 8
MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359
STEPHEN PETERS
2000 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DOUG PETERSON
8369 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CITY OF
BOA DATE:6/30/98
CCDATE:
CASE #: 98-4 VAR
By: Kirchoff.'v
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
A request for an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback
for the co~on of a deck.
240 Eastwood Court
(Lot 8, Block 1, Lake Riley Woods)
Linda & Bill Jansen
240 Eastwood Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
496-3938
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
WATER AND SEWER:
·
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
Rural
Approximately 2.4 acres
N/A
N:
S:
E:
W:
RD, Recreational Dev¢lopmeat Lake
HR, Rural Resi~
RR, Rural Reaideatial
RR, Rural Residential
Unavailable to the site - Outdde MUSA
The site is a riparian lot on Lake Riley. A single family
home with an attac~ garage exists on ~e site. The
northern portion of the lot contains a bluff and is heavily
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Resideatial, Large Lot
9000
9100
~
Park
Heights
Park
lANCE REQUEST
e~l ~
9200
9300
9400
9500
9600
9700
9800
9900
10000
10100
10200
10300
10400
10500
Jansen Variance
June 24, 1998
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-1401 states that structures shall main~ a minimum of a 30 foot setback from the top
of the bluff. However, if the home was constructed prior to June 1, 1991, any addition shall
maintain a 5 foot setback or the existing setback, which ever is greater. (In this case, the setback
will be 30 feet because that is the house setback.)
Section 20-1 defines the bluff impact zone as "a bluff~ land located within twenty (20)feet
front the top oft he bluff"
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the applicant applied for a building permit for a living space addition and a new. deck.
In order to construct the 11 foot living space addition, the original deck was removed from the
home and the proposed deck was shifl~ closer to Lake Riley. The addition was constructed, but
the deck was never built. The deck was removed from the building permit application because
the applicant desired a different design. According to the City's building permit, the proposed
deck was 302 sq. f[ (see Attachment 4). Staff incorrectly approved the building permit for the
deck because topography was not shown on the survey. The applicant should have had to receive
a variance to build the deck because it did not meet the 30 foot bluff setback. Although it was
not indicated on the 1995 building permit, the applicant stated that the proposal included a brick
patio and fire pit near the bluff. Staff would have not supported a variance for this plan because
of the excessive amount of hard surface. The applicant contends that the size of the original deck
is important to the ~t request. Staff believes that the size and style of the 1995 deck is
irrelevant to this application because the building permit has expired (Section 20-91 states that a
building permit expire~ in 90 days if the work has not begun). The current application is a
request to construct a 575 sq. fL, two-level deck in the bluff setback.
In 1991, the 30 foot bluff setback was approved in the southern portion of the City. This setback
intended to protect unique and sensitive topography from further erosion near the Minnesota
River Valley and Bluff Creek area. The 30 foot setback and 20 foot bluff impact zone were
developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The subject property was
not included in this original ordinance. However, seeing that bluffs and environmentally
sensitive areas were being destroyed or degraded by grading, filling or development in other parts
of the community, the city adopted the 30 foot bluff setback city-wide in 1994.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting an 18.5 foot Variance fi-om the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the
construction of a 575 sq. fL deck. The existing house is 30 feet from the top of the bluff on the
west and 32 feet on the east. The bluff protection ordinance requires that all structures maintain
Jansen Variance
June 24, 1998
Page 3
a minimum setback of 30 feet from the top of the bluff. The proposed deck extends 20.5 feet
from the house at its deepest point and 6 feet at its smallest.
The proposed deck addition is two levels. The western most deck (223 sq. ft.) is over 9 feet
above grade and the lower level on the east (354sq. ft.) is 1 foot above grade. Both levels have
an access to and from the home. The decks are linked via a spiral staircase. The applicant
contends that two levels are needed to make the most of the sunshine and the lake. The west
deck was primarily designed to allow light to pass through into the lowest level of the house.
The lower level or the east deck was designed for outdoor gatherings. The applicant contends
that the bluff setback is creating a hardship because outdoor living space cannot be constructed
without a variance.
When the applicant constructed the 11 foot addition on the lake side of the home, they shifted the
area for the deck into the bluff setback. This addition created the application and the hardship.
The applicant indicated that they were not aware of any setbacks or restrictions on building near
a bluff so they proceeded with the addition in 1995. Staff believes that it is the owner's
responsibility to be aware of any regulations that may affect the development of their property.
The hardship was self-created and staff does not support the variance.
The regulations that a municipality imposes on private property intends to protect the investment
as well as the health, safety and welfare of the community. Without the bluff setback, homes
would continue to be built on the top of the bluff, thus causing increased erosion and the
possibility of damage to the home and the natural features of Chanhassen.
Bluff Setback
The bluff setback was developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
. protect bluffs from the negative impacts of development. According to the DNR, "the 30 foot
:' ~h'ucture setback from the bluff top provides a minimum distance between the bluff top and the
planned or proposed foundation, walls or eaves of a structure for the maneuvering of building
materials during construction." They also define the bluff impact zone as the 20 feet from the
top of the bluff. This area should be preserved to maintain the natural appearance of the bluff
and prevent soil erosion (see Attachment 5).
Staff believes that the bluff setback and impact zone should be clear of structures. The proposed
deck encroaches into the 20 foot impact zone 8.5 feet. The applicant's proposal is excessive.
Most building permits for decks are less than 200 sq. ft. in area. The deck's design does not take
the bluff into consideration.
Jansen Variance
June 24, 1998
Page 4
DNR Recommendation
The shoreland management ordinance requires that the City notify the DNR of any requ~
variances that deviate from the set standards from shorelands. Ceil Strauss, DNR Area
Hydrologist, verbally recommended denial of the variance because she believes that the applicant
has not demonstrated a hardship. Staff supports the DNR and its recommendation.
Neighbor Comments
Staff was contacted by a neighbor concerning the variance from the bluff setback. They stated
that they were required to maintain the 30 foot bluff setback when their home was constructed, so
the applicant should too. They also stated that the lot is over 400 feet in depth and that an
alternative location should be selected for the deck. ff the variance is granted, they believe that a
new bluff setback will be established in this neighborhood.
Staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship to support the vaziance.
The inability to construct a deck is not a hardship. Furthermore, a reasonable use exists on this
property. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the 18.5 foot variance for the construction of the
deck.
FINDINGS.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recomm~ and the City Council shall not gnmt a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a,
That the literal enforcement of this chapta' would cause an undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the pwpa'ty cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use inchules a use rnad_e by a
majority of comparable pwperty 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 fi~om them meet this criteria.
Finding: A single family home and attached garage exist on the pwperty so the applicant
has a reasonable use of the pwpmy. The pwperty is large enough where outdoor living
space could be constructed in another location without a variance. The inability to conslru~
a deck does not constitute a hardship. Appro~ this variance would depart downward
from the existing neighborhood standards.
bi
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Jansen Variance
June 24, 1998
Page 5
Finding: The conditions are applicable to many of the riparian lots in the city and those
lots in the extreme southern portion of the city. The bluff setback was adopted city-wide
because of the sensitive topography that exists throughout Chanhassen.
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 purpose of this request is to construct a large deck. This will certainly
increase the value of the home.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The hardship is self-created. The applicants constructed an addition that shifted
the proposed deck closer to the bluff setback, thus creating the current application.
e.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The 18.5 foot variance will permit a structure to be located in a bluff setback and
impact zone. The encroachment into the impact zone could negatively affect the bluff and
Lake Riley.
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 variation will enable a structure to maintain a lesser bluff setback than would
be found in other properties in the RSF and RR zoning districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion:
'The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the request # 98-4 for aa 18.5 foot variance from
the 30 side yard setback 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 created the hardship."
Jansen Variance
June 24, 1998
Page 6
Should the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve the request. The following conditions shall
apply:
1. The applicant shall not alter vegetation in the bluff impact zone.
2. Type II erosion control shall be maintained until vegel~on has been restored.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application and Letter
2. Section 20-1400, Bluff Protection
3. Lot Survey and Deck Elevations
4. 1995 Deck Plan
5. DNR Bluff'Setbaek Information
6. Public heating notice and property owners
g:~plan~ck~oa\jansen 98-4 vat.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAY 2, 9 1998
.APPLICANT:~
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (Day time)..~;~ -- ~C~ ~'
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development.*
Rez~ning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
..~ Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ .-7~' ~J(-'~
A list of all propsrty owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
** 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.
· NOTE - When multiple applications am processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
nd plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should, confer wtth the
lanning 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 I am responsible fo~ cernplying
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 copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purr, hue agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this 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 appllc~tion. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. wtth 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.
i 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 properly for which the approvaVpermlt is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records.
.
nature of Fee Owner
Received on ~._~~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~~~
Date
· The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting, ff not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the appllcant'a addreu.
VARIANCE REQUEST
JANSEN / 240 EASTWOOD CT.
Description of the vartance requested.
We are requesting the following setback variance to the required bluff setback of 30 feet for a wooden
deck and patio mucmre:
- Lower level smicmre 20'6": 18' variance for a set back of 11'6".
-Upperlevelstmcture 16' : 16' variance for a set back of l4'.
Justification of bray request compiles ~dth the findings for granting a variance.
The ori~nal house was built in 1987, we purchased it in July of 1994. In 1995 we applied for a permit to
construct an addition and deck on the north side of the existing structure. (copy of plans attached) When
the building application was submitted using the plans dated 6/5/95 the builder was informed that the
deck stalr~-ay encroached upon the well setback requirement. He then showed us a revised deck plan and
resubmitted the application which was approved on 6/20/95. We proceeded with the construction of the
addition ~vhich includes an extensive wall of windows with a double sliding door to access the deck on the
second level and two doors on the lower level to access a patio.
Upon demolition of the existing deck we began considering other deck design alternatives. Our goal ~vas
to provide the maximum view from inside the house, with as minimal a shading to the lower level living
area as possible, with enough area to aeoommodate our existing outdoor furniture, without having the
view up from the lake be entirely of the bottom of the deck. The builder of the addition was unable to
design an acceptable structure. So we proceeded with completion of the addition with the knowledge that
we would be adding a deck at a later date once acceptable plans could be designed. Due to the ori~nal
approval of the deck location we now have a structure that is deck-ready, with an ordinance now
restricting its completion and full use of the accesses clearly shown ia the construction plans.
The Archadeck plan we are submitting meets all of our goals with the addition of some interesting
materials to make it less obstructive for viewing from the house or from the lake. The upper level
accommodates limited seating for home owner enjoyment, with the lower level dimensions to
accommodate small groups for barbecuing, dining and entertaining. The spiral staircase provides
compact access between the two structures, with the patio extending towards the stairway down to the
lakeshore.
Findings for granting a variance:
"Undue hardship" because the property cannot be put to reasonable use with the position of the
deck access doors to the position of the bluff. Door and deck positioning which had prior city approval.
"Reasonable uae" includes a use made by all of the comparable properties within five hund.~
feet. Lakeshore homes are usually constmaed with outdoor enter~_alnment areas, which is true of our
adjacent properties. Additionally, due to this being a northern exposure, the ground tends to hold a great
deal of moisture for an extended period of time, making it impossible to use without some type of raised
surface. We will be finishing the area around the deck with shade and moisture tolerant plantings. This
will be a "sustainable" landscape plan to eliminate any need for chemicals or supplemental watering to
reduce the amount of runoff and increase erosion control. Consistent with the landscaping we have
completed to date on other areas of the property.
FROM: LINDA AND BILL
24O EASTWOOD CT.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MAY 29, 1998
REQUEST FOR BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE
,MAY 29 1998
One of our reasons for moving to Ch~nhn~en was an appreciation for the natural resources that exist in
this community. We not only fully under, nd ..d apprcdatc thc dty's position on protecting the n~_ ,ral
reso~ of thi.~ community, we are active I~i~'~nt.~ in t~ ~on aftl~ ~ ~ w~
evaluated our project and the concerns af the Bluff Ordinance and have folxnd wha~t we think is a
compatible means of achieving both end goals: Our dedrcd cad goal of an otmioor eny~ertainment area to
actively enjoy our location on one of thi.~ city's nicest natural resources (Lake Riley) without taus/nE harm
to the area or jeoparaizin~ the enjoyment of it by the rest of the community.
Ideally, had we been made aware of the bluff set-back ordinance at the time of our remodel in 1995, we
~vould have been able to work with our contractor to meet our requirements and the city's requirements
through different design plans, as per chan..,oe, s we ztlade to comply with all of the ordinnnc~s that we
enco~t~ with our con.mazcfion plans. We arc now in a position of being unable tO use OUr property as
it was intended without requesting a variance to the bluff setbae~
Realizing what needs to be accomplished:
Bluff Protectlon (Article XXFIlI.) Statement of intent. (Sec. 20-1400)
Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluff tmpact zone may
result in increased dangers of erosion, Increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby
endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
the city. To preserve the character of the bluff tmpact zone within the ctty, alteration to land or
vegetation within the bluff area will not be permitted eazept as regulated by this article and by the
regulations of the underlying zoning district where the property Is located
We have selected a design and materialn that achieve the above goals:
- This construction will not result in any excavation, other then for pier footing. By .~ng a raised patio
we eliminate cxiawafion and fill that would be nece. smuy for a paver or other ground muaurc.
- There will be no loss of trees or existing vegetafiom
- Plantings will be added to prevent erosion and a sustainable landscaping plan will elimina~_e ally use of
chemicals or supplemealal watering that would otherwise have been necessary.
- Visibility to surrounding pmpeRics is non-existent and visibility from the lake is rcdtuaM by ,,~ng glass
railings and limiting the size of the ~ strllcO.~. We have maintained the llatuxal vegetation
on thc Bluff' to the extent that the house is barely vidble through the trees fxom the lake. No trees
have been removed and prtlning ha.q been kept to a minim~rm
- Additionally, we have sought gu/dance and recomalendafions from philip Elkin to plan "lakescaping"
erosion being produced by waves on the shore line.
We are actively working with our lake assodation to bring the same land ~ values to the other
lake shore owners, broadening the influence we can provide to the community to preserve our natural
We ~lcome any site visits that would be beneficial to your decim'on maldn~ process. Thank you for
taking the time to consider our request, we look forward to speaking with each of you prior to or during
the luly 1st meeting.
Seca, 20-1352--20.1399, Reserved,
ZONING § 20-1402
ARTICLE XXVI~. BLUFF PROTECTION
Sec. 20-1400. Statement of intent,
Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluffimpact zone may
result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and
thereby endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the city. To preserve the character of the bluff impact .zone within the
city, alteration to land or vegetation within the bluff area will not be permitted except as
regulated by this article and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the
property is located.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 2, 4-8-96)
Sec. 20.1401. Structure setbacks.
(a) Structures, including, but not ]imited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory
buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from
the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least thirty (30) feet.
(b) On parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the
setback from the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for
additions to an existing building. Any new buildings will have to meet the thirty-foot setback.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 3, 4-8-96)
Sec. 20.1402. Stairways, lifts and landings.
Stairways and lifts may be permitted in suitable sites where construction will not redirect
water flow direction and/or increase drainage velocity. Major topographic alterations are
prohibited. Stairways and lifts must receive an earthwork permit and must meet the following
design requirements:
(1) Stairways and lifts may not exceed four (4) feet in width on residential lots. Wider
stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or lendings.
(4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or
placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures
control of soil erosion.
(5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous
portions of lots.
Supp. No. 9 1273
§ 20-1402
CHANHASSEN~CODE
..
(6) Facilities such as ramps, lii%s, or mobil/fy paths for physic~y h~,~dicapped persons are
also allowed, provided that the alm_~n~ion~! and performance standards ofsubitems (1)
to (5) are complied with.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 218, § 1, 8-22-94)
Se~ 20-1403. Removal or alteration of vegetation.
Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone is prohibited except for
limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, prnnlng and trlmmlq5 of trees to provide a
view from the principal dwelllnE site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and
landings and access paths.
Removal or alteration of vegetation'must receive prior approval of the plsnql,g director or
designee. An on-site review will be made to determine if the removal or alteration of vegetation
will require new ground cover. In no case shJ~ll ciearcu~ be permitted. City staff'will work
with the property owner to develop a means of creatin~ a view while mlnlmi~ir~g disturbance
to the bluff impact zone.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1404. Topographic alterations/grading and filling.
An earthwork permit will be required for the movement of more that ten (10) cubic yards of
material within bluff impact zones. The permit shall be granted if the proposed alteration does
not adversely affect the bluff impact zone or other property. Topographic alterations/grading
and filling within the bluff impact zone shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage.
The drainage from property within the bluff impact zone may not be redirected without a
permit from the dty. Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
.-
:. ~i.'.,.. 'Sec. 20-1405. Roads, driveways and parking areas.
Reads, driveways, and parlrlnE areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed
within bluff impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exists. If
no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause
adverse impacts.
(Ord. Bio. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1406. Reserved.
Editor's note--Section 2 of Ord. Bio. 218, adopted Aug. 22, 1994, deleted former § 20-406,
pertaining to the official bluff impact zone map, derived from Ord. No. 152, adopted Oct. 14,
1991.
Supp. No. 9 1274
ZONING § 20-1449
Sec. 20-1407. Reconstruction of lawful nonconforming structures.
Lawful nonconforming structures that have been d-maged or destroyed may be recon-
structed provided that it is reconstructed within one (1) year following its damage or
destruction and provided the nonconformity is not materially increased.
(Ord. Bio. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
Secs. 20-1408--20-1449. Reserved.
· .
Supp. No. 9 1274.1
ZONING § 20-1
A/terat/on me~ns any chAnL, e or rearr~n~~t, other than incidental repairs,-in the
supporting members of an exist%-, buildlnE, such as bearing w~11~, colnmns beams, girders or
interior partitions, as well as any chnn~m~ in doors or Windows, or any enlargement to or
diminution of a bui]ai.f~ or structure, whether horizontally or vertically, or the moving of a
buildinE or structure from one (1) location to another.
An/ma/f~d/ot m~-- land or builai.~ used for the _co-~-ed feeal.g, breeding, r.i~-g or
holding of livestock and poullz7 where the concentration of--i,-a~ iz mxch that a vegetative
cover c--not be maintained within the enclosure. Pa~tur~ are not considered --imal feedlote.
Antenna me-n. any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or tr--.mitt/ng
electromagnetic wave~, inclual.g, but not limited to, directional antenna., ~ueh U pane]z,
microwave ~, and satellite dizhe~; and omnldirec~onal an~, ~ch aB whip antennas.
Arboretum means a place where plants, tree~, and shrubs are cultivated for ~cientific and
educational purpo~e~.
Arterial 8treet me.n. a street or highway with acce~ reatrictionz de_si~ed to carry large
values of traffic between variou~ sector~ of the city or county and beyond.-
[Auto service center] me-n. an integrated grou9 of commel~gi~L! eetabH.hmenta or ~ingle
eetablishmente pi--ned, developed, and m---ged aB a unit with off-street par~-g provided on
site and providing ~ engaged prim~ in the supplying of good~ and ~rvice~ generally
required in the operation and m-l-tenance of motor vehicle~. The~e may include sale and
servicing of tire~, batteri~, automotive acceuorie~, replacement item~, waBhl.~ and lubricat-
lng services, and the performance of ml-or automotive m-l-tenance and repair. ~ does not
include m~ior body repair where it i~ nece~ary to provide long term ~torage of care and body
parts.
Bed and breakfast means an owner-occupied single-family home in which not more than five
(5) rooms are rented on a nightly baBiz for a period of seven (7) or lees consecutive day~ by the
same per~on. Meals may or may not be provided to residente and overnight guezta.
Block me-n. an area of land within a subdivi~ien that iz entirely bounded by Mzee~, or by
streets and the exterior bounda~ or boundarie~ of the subdivision, or a combination of the
above with a waterway or any other barrier to the continuity of developmenf~ -~
Bluff mean~ a natural topogra~c feature ~uch aB a Bill; cliff, or emb--lrment having the
following characteristics:
(1) The slope rize~ at leaBt twenty-five (25) feet above the toe of the blut~ and
(2) ~ grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five (25) feet or more
abbve the toe of the bluff averag~ thirty (30) percent or greater.
(3) An area with an average slope ofle~s than eighteen (18) percent over a distance for
fit~y (50) feet or more sh.1] not be considered part of the bluff.
.B~lu. ff.i_~m~oact zone means a bluff and land located within twenty (20) feet from the top of a
bluff.
Supp. Bio. 9 1143
·
s sOa~ . ,,
NORTH
,.
F. dgework Builders, Inc.
imJA4~]LI~[2IVIGAD elL4.'qlM.I~K. MN ~l~JI7
SENT BY'. DNR METRO;
qTERS
.,
, -23-97 12..02; 8127727573-> 612 937 5739; #4/5
Fax : 612-296-0445 ;97 i0:14 P.O /OZl
The Committee began its work in July, '87 and met every
other week for an entire day in St. Cloud. A total of
twelve mae=lags were held, finishing in December. A draft
with all the Committee,s revisions was prepared and the
groups took this back to =heir or~aniza~io~ie for review in
meeting. These were ~he~ inoorpormted ~nto another draft,
which was ehen submitte~ to the Key,&or of Statutes Off, ce
for preparation of an official hearing draft.
The format of this sec=ion will follow the existing current
format of the shoreiand regulations for
(M~nnesota Rules, parts 6120.~500 tO 6120.3900), except
the firs~ part, 6120.2500 DEPINITIONS, will be skipped and
the definit~ons of relevant new de~inition~ will be
addressed as they appear in s%tbsequent par~s.
6120.2600 POLICY
Ali of the proposed cha~ges in this part are minor. A
phrase referencing the 1973 session laws in which the
amendment to the original Shoreland Ac= =o include
municipalities appear~ [~ propoee~ ~o be deleted, since the
Revisor o~ Statutes Of£1ce has £ndloated that such
s=atute chapters, (Minn. S~a=. Chaps. 3~4 and 396, are
proposed =o be added to a ~tatemmnt which references
statutory policies because they appeared in the county
regulations, which are being entirety rescinded as part of
the consolidation of the two existing sets of rula~
one. A phrase indies=lng ~se of the term "commie~io~r".in
=he rules aaa~s th~ aoma£ssioner of'natural
propose(~ to be d~lete~ hera a~ handled lnstea8 by adding a
definition O£ commissioner (61.~0.~S00, ~u~p. 3a.). The
re~=ining proposed revisions to this par1; are either
deletions o£ ~he term #municipality" ~or the reasons
explained abo~e, or are minor wordin~ revisions ~ade by the
Revisor'a offioe.
6120.R700 MINIIiUI~ STANDARDS AI~D CRITERIA
This an%ira part is proposed to be dale[ed bacatlse most o~
it Is Just a sol, mary listing of the major top~cs coverea in
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
.-
"-23-97 12:03; 6127727573 => 612 937 5739;
F~:612-2~0~5
R~r 2~ ~97 10:15
#515
those areas are usually already h~ghly developed and ~he
p~servetion of o~en ~ce ~r ~ si~ ~ewage trea~t
offm~ is no~ ne~js~.
~~la~ion or prese~atLon and
' or o~' ~a~ilities ~t can
l~~pt preaipi~ation ~ ~ll~r ~ ~du~ out,ace ~~
adverse enviro~mental lmD~cte of d~vel~n= a~_d
6~nmtruo~°n aeeiv!~ian:.- These ~~s'~n be measured ~n
bo~h physical and aes~tio t~. ~ymically, developer
enoroa~~ on bluf~ tops ~ le~ ~ a~lera~a soil
e~sion and in some oaae~, sl~e failure. Aes~e~ically,
develo~nt encroa~en= on bluff ~ps ~ oomp~iae or
eliminate ~e na2ural appearance of ~s top~raphioal
f~~e in shor~lan~ ~eaa. ~e 30 fo0~ e~oture ae~ac~
bluff ~op an~ ~e ~l~ed ~ ~~:f~~l~, wall~ or
~ ~~~~e for ~e.~na~eri~ ~f building
p~e~a~on o~ eoila ~n r~~ or avoid e~ion' probl~,
a~ prese~ation and ~in2~ma of vege~i~ '~ protec~
aoil~, screen d~velopm~= a~ ~lm~ ~e' natu~l
appearance of blu~ a~. Neo~ ~orel~ al~era~ionm
be ~o~uc~d wi~in ~e f~ 10 f~t ~~~ of =he bluff
~he se~bagks fron blu££ ~ope £or s~ruCt...ure'e tn
which is defined as bein~ 20 ~ee~ from ~he to~ of.~he blu~ I
and the whole bluff. (i.e., 20 feet plus 10 feet 30 feet, J
the w~d~h of the ~lu~f setback a~ea), It i~ no, ed for ~
clarity ~hat ~he blu££ ~apa~ zo~%e ~ es~ablished for |
preservation and nana~ of ~~~ ~~ati~ and ~
soils, a~ all s~~u~ d~~~ ~ ex~ud~ fr~ ~is ~
zone, .~ce~ for stai~, li~ ~d l~in~. (~e I~ I ~
S~pa~ a~ S~. ~ o~ ~ 6X20.~mOO ~or a~iti~ ~
die,salon of bluf~ A~ac2 zo~s). .' '
/~~e statements of need dem~r~b~g ~.he de£i~/tions relevant
to the above dis~ussion of bluff
zones are discussed
fiV~9 x~.___B_l.u_~t The definition of a bluff is
because o~ ~ new propom~ ~g m~aqe bluff areas
shorela~ areas, ~ ~s~~ in ~ S~~~ of Need for
bluff ~op se~bac~ and blu~ ~ct z~m. ~e ~apo~a~c
28
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Tuesday, June 30, 1998
at 6:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 City Center Drive
PROJECT: Bluff Setback Variance
APPLICANT: William &Linda Jansen
Lake Riley
LOCATION: 240 Eastwood Court
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area.
The applicant, William &Linda Jansen, are requesting an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff
setback for the construction of an open porch on property zoned RE and located at 240 Eastwood Court.
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". ~h'e 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
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1998.
TWOOJANSEN
D COURT
SSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM & LYNN STOKKE
241 EASTWOOD COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM HENAK
280 EASTWOOD COURT
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
STEVEN & JILL SHIPLEY
261 EASTWOOD COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM HENAK ~ K ALLERS
280 EASTWOOD COURT
C~HASSEN, MN 55317
JOEL & KATHY MEYER
9410 FOXFORD ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT & SUSAN MCCARGAR
9450 FOXFORD ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 5.5317
DAVID & KAREN DAOUST
9470 FOXFORD ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOANNE/RICHARD LAMETrRY
9490 FOXFORD ROAD
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
& KATHLEEN M BURKE
9591 MEADOWLARK LANE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
MATTHEW & CHARLENE THILL
9810 MEADOWLARK LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TIM ERHART
9611 MEADOWLARK LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD P VOGEL
105 PIONEER TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MIKE & MONICA WISTRAND
9670 MEADOWLARK LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 1998
Chairperson $ohn.~on called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Stevell Bea'quist and Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: C~thia Kirchoff, Planner I
A REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM ~ 10 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION~ BLAIR AND NANCY
ENTENMANN~ 7407 FRONTIER TRAHJ
C~thia Kirchoffpresented the staff report on this item.
Blair Entenmann stated they are requesting a 4 foot variance not a 5 foot as indicated in the staff
report. He stated that when they purchased the home they knew of the challenges associated with
remodeling the home. Mr. Entenmaun indicated that this application is similar to the 1993
request to replace their garage because. He also stated that they are under time and money
constraints for the addition. He stated that the proposed addition is affordable and it intends to
protect the environment. Mr. Entenmaun stated that the previous owners and the City created the
hardship. He mentioned that it will not obstruct the view for their neighbors.
Steve Berquist asked if the proposed addition will be following the existing setback.
Entenmann responded that it will maintain the existing setback and that an eave will not be
constructed on the addition.
John Kosmas, Mr. ~ntenmann's architect, stated that the if the addition would meet the required
setback the house would be elongated and it would inc~ the cost. He mentioned that the
setback was 5 feet when an addition was constmeted on the house in the 1960s.
Carol Watson responded that the ordinance was ameaded to require a 10 foot setback to improve
existing situations.
Kosmas stated that the open space will be maintained between the houses.
Willard Johnsbn asked staff when the 5 foot setback was required.
Kirchoffresponded that, acco~g to historical records, the setback was adopted in 1958.
Watson stated that the setback is not relevant to this application.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
May 12, 1998
Page 2
Johnson moved, Watson seconded the motion to close the public hearing.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to approve a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot side
yard setback requirement for the construction of an addition with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall maintain the natural drainageway.
2. The applicant shall use Type I erosion control until vegetation has been reestablished.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berquist moved, John.qon seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated January 13, 1998 with the
changes indicated by staff. Watson abstained. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Themeeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff
Planner I