1998 07 14 AGENDA
CHANHASSEN ZONING'BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1998 AT 6:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
CITY COUNCIL CHEERS
Call to Order
Old Business
Ii
A request for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of
an enclosed porch, 8372 Stone Creek Drive, Lot 24, Block 3, Creekside Addition, Kim
Beauclair (applicant) and Chris & Craig Winter (owners).
2. Approval &Minutes.
Adjournment
CITY OF
BOA DATE:5~O/98
7/14/98
CCDATE:
CASE #: 98-5 VAR
BT. Kirchoffi. v
STAFF
REPORT
Z
<1:
(.,3
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
A request for an 11 foot variance fi'om the 30 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of an enclosed porch.
Stone Creek Drive
(Lot 24, Block 3, Creekside Addition)
Kim Beauclair
3120 68th Street E.
Inver Grove Heights, MN
455-3247
(Contractor)
Chris & Craig Winter
8372 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhasscn, MN
7974901
(Owner)
hJ
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
RSF, Single Family Residential
Approximately 20,000 sq. ~
N/A
N:
S:
E:
W:
RSF, Single Family Residential
RSF, Single Family Residential
RSF, Single Family Residential
RR, Rural Residential
Available to the site
The site is a wooded lot near the westerly Bluff Creek
tributary. A single family home with an attached garage
exists on the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
VARIA
~ /~er Bird
RE;
IL(t/ce
i Ar~r~
.¥man
Beauclair Variance
June 30, 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS UPDATE
On June 30, 1998, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals tabled this application in order
to confer with the city attorney about changing the subject property's rear yard into a side
yard. The city attorney responded that the zoning ordinance would have to be amended
and that the amendment could create unanticipated problems. Staff has included, as an
attachment, illustrations on how required yards relate to the shape of the lot (Attachment
7).
This report has been updated. AH new information is in bold type.
BACKGROUND
Creekside Addition was platted in 1995. The extreme southern portion of this 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 accompanying 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 this encroachment. 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 encroachment of enclosed
Beauclair Variance
June 30, 1998
Page 3
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.
Staffbelieves 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
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, 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
minimum separation between the two homes should be 40 feet. However, ff the variance ts
approved, the houses will only be a minimum of 29 feet apart.
The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, therefore, staff does not recommend approval.
IN I~.GS
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,
be
dt
Beau¢lair Variance
June 30, 1998
Page 4
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 recognize that there are pre-existing standards in
this neighborhood. Vaxiances 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 consmmted, 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.
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 conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
in the RSF zomg district.
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 consmmt a dosed porch. The outcome of thi.q
change will increase the value of the parcel.
The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a serf-created hardship.
Finding: The hardship is self-created. This applicant has the opportunity to construct 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 permit a smmum to be loca~ into a required setback
potentially infringing on the adjoining future ~ owner's comfort.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public m'eem or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially dimini.qh or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Beauclair Variance
June 30, 1998
Page 5
Finding: The variation will enable a structure to maintain a rear yard setback that is much
less than what would be found in other properties in the RSF zoning district. The deck will
most certainly affect the property to the west.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the request #98-5 for a 11 foot variance from the
30 rear yard setback for the construction of an enclosed porch based upon the findings presented in
the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant has a reasonable oppommity 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
7. Required Yards Based Upon Lot Shape
8. Minutes from the June 30, 1998 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting
g:~plan~ck~oa\beauclair 98-5 var.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) s3?.lgoo
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
TELEPHONE (Daytime)
.._
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezor~ng
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subd'Msion°
%
OWNER: (~k,a f C~,u~ i,C ;~-
ADDRESS: ~°~'~'2- 3k,~(- c,,-,~.~ D,-
'~.. ~..,.~(e.,., ,.
TELEPHONE:
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
)~' Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
;X; Escj;e~r Rling Fees/Attorney Cost**
(($5(J/CU P/SPRNAC/VAR/W AP/Metes
~ 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 slze 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 aooroorlate fee shall be chained for each aoDlication.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME $c,L~,,., r~k.~,~. ~ ~-/~ ~,~J';e~ . .
LOCATION ot'Z'2 z 5-~,,~ c.,'.~k ~:'
i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION., ~'~
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION /-,u,-5.' .~,,,.~,:.-/~-,,~,, ·
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
mil
This application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly printed and h'~ust be act, ompanled by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should, confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requlremenfs applicable to your application.
!
This is to certify that I am maklng application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible 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 attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or pumhase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
[ ;.'-..~.-~4,.: ~
! will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this a,opli~tlon. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility ~tudles, etc, with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceea wtth the study. The documents and information I have submitted ara true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granflng 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 withln 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
Sig~1ature df-Applicant Date
Sigf[ature of It'"ee Owner
Application Received on
Date
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which wlll be available on Friday prior to the
P[PJP~,JII~,J · .a ... · ......
3120 ~ St. E
('R~.) ,,1~-1247 (p~l~)
RECEIVED
JUN 4 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 dty compile a list of property owners. I can be billed directly for the cost.
Enclosed is application, ~.coples 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 buildlng for the addition of a deck in the proposed location. Without a variance, a
usable pomh/deck can not be built. Without the addition of the porch/deck, the ownem 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 living space is under utilized and creates a problem
for future ownem.
The property is heav~y wooded and the addrdon would not block supply of light or air to adjacent
Sincerely,
Klm Beaudair
President
§ 20-595
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
(7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet.
b. if the' driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250)
feet[
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92;
Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93)
Sec. 20-596. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "PR" District:
(1) Commercial kennels and stables.
(Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90)
Editor's note---Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No.
120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596.
Seca. 20-597--20-610. Reserved.
ARTICI.E XII. '~L~' SINGI~-FAMU.Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-611. Intent.
The intent of the "P, SF" 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 foUowing uses are permitted in an "HSF" District:
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) Public and private open space.
(3) State-Ucensed 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
(a) Sw/mmin~ pool.
·
(4) 're_--,';'{* c~urt.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-34 12-15-86)
'See. 20-614. Conditional use~.
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 reference~Condltional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
See. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The fo]lowing minim.m requirements shall be obaerved 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 ~ 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
Supp. No. 9 1211
§ 20-615
illustrated below.
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Lots Wh.rs Frontsgs Is
M~ssursd At 8stbsok Llns
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.
· #eck / Flag Lot8
Fron Lot Line
lO0/Lot
(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
ZONINO § 20-682
(6)
c. For side yards, ten (10) feat..
The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as ~onows:
a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard _shAll be the lot line nearest the
"public' ri~t-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 remaiiling 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 mmrimum 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; OrcL No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90;
Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95)
Editor's note--Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to Amend § 20-615(6)b. pert. Ainin_o' to
accessory structure; such provision were cont,,ined in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend-
sent 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 YIll. "R-t" ]y[lYl~D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-631. Intent.
The in~.nt 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 acr~
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-632. Permitted use~
The following uses are permitted in an '~R-4" District:
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) Two-family dwellings.
Supp. No. 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 ~listrict.
(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 ora 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)
(4)
Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard
setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a comer lot; provided,
however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks.
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 landing_
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 (15) 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
FOR: CLAUSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~]~,~'"~
...'T,,,
I
!
;
I
!
t
t
'"' 3'
't ,5
/
/
· ,, ..
' -" ~-:'i
.'0-
.
.-..
.-.' ·
PEOPOSEB Et_EVATIO~ ~.,
GARAC, E FLOOR -
TOP OF BLOCK - 025.&
LOWEST FLOOR = 31~.g
~e~,i$/d Pr,W;,,/ ,
Lot 24. Block 3. CREEKSIDE ADDITION. Carver County. Minnesota.
i illl
We hereby certify that this is a true end correct} repr,,~t~/"~
o survey of the boundaries of the above de~ls~el~,
location of oil buildings, if <:lny, thereon, ond~
/
/
/
/
~v#
%,,../
i_l_j
,') <
>1
(,,")
L,._J
I--
I--
I I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
D OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
Tuesday, June 30, 1998
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 DHve
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed In your area.
The applicant, Craig and Chris 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 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 thii project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit.
wriffen comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1998.
..
OSMONICS, INC.
5951 CLEARWATER DRIVE
MINNETONKA, MN 55343
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT INC
450 COUNTY ROAD D EAST
LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117
HOMER F. SUTTER
1913 CREEKVlEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL & LAURA WOELFEL
1924 CREEKVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BRUCE & KANDREA JELLE
1927 CREEKVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOMAS BARR
1944 CREEKVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STEVEN & DARLA YERKES
2030 RENAISSANCE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
AGHA TAHIR M KHAN
2040 RENAISSANCE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT LAWSON
2041 RENAISSANCE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STEPHEN PETERS
2000 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAN CHUMBLER
2001 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BOB & CINDY EGELSTON
2018 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARVIN & CAROLE LUECK
2019 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN WING
2034 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES D. OLSON
2050 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CONLIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
11840 ISLETON AVENUE NO
GRANT, MN 55082
HAROLD E. SCHRUM
8297 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JERRY CORNELL
8345 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HESTIA HOMES INC
4885 CO RD 8
MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359
DOUG PETERSON
8369 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CRAIG & CHRISTINE WINTER
8372 STONE CREEK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MCKNIGHT & ASSOCIATES
14093 COMMERCE AVE NE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
I N T~iz.I(::)II~. I~::)T ~XAM?L, E6
OPP - SI-IAPEP LOT EXAM
Source: The New Illustrated Book of Development
Definitions, 1993.
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 30, 1998
Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard John~oll, Steven Berquist and Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
A REQUEST FOR AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM ~ 30 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR Tl:IE CONSTRUCTION OF A ENCLOSED PORCH~ BLAIR AND
NANCY ENTENMANN~ 8372 STONE CREEK DRIVE
Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the staff report on this item.
Steve Berquist asked what the dotted line signifies on the plat.
Cynthia Kirchoff responded that the lines were easements.
Chris Winter stated that the home placement was dominated by the physical features and the
Bluff Creek. She explained that they had to reduce the size of the hallway 6 inches for the house
to fit on the lot.
Berquist requested a definition of a rear yard.
Kirchoff indicated that a rear yard is the opposite of the front yard. She went on to say that the
front yard abuts the street.
Ms. Winter stated that they are not building the porch to increase the value but utilize their back
y. ard. She explained that they have many large trees in the rear yard and that they do not want to
~,.
remove them for a porch. Ms. Winter stated that the switching the deck and the porch would not
work because the porch would look into the half-bath.
Carol Watson stated that she would like to make thi,~ plan work without a large variance.
Berquist questioned if the rear yard could be redefined as a side yard because of the large bluff
creek setback.
Kirchoff responded that the setback is for planning and zoning purposes.
Berquist stated that topography and elevation should determine setbacks.
Willard Johnson stated that it is not the fault of the City that the homeowners built this home.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
June 30, 1998
Page 2
Berquist requested that the rear yard be redefined as the side yard.
Watson asked if the setback from the enclosed porch is 19 feet.
Kirchoff responded that it is 19 feet.
Berquist stated that the applicants should place the porch on the back of the house.
Ms. Winter stated that their daughter's bedroom is in the ground level on the back of the house
and the porch would affect the amount of light entering the room.
Kim Beauclair, contractor, stated that the future owner's concerns are important however, he
believes that an open deck would not impose on a neighboring property.
Watson asked if the porch on the back of the house would be an option.
Mr. Winter responded that windows are present in that area of the house. He stated that the
windows are not the same size as a patio door.
Mr. Beauclair indicated the existing trees in the rear yard will block the view of the structure.
Berquist stated that this is a very wooded lot.
Mr. Beauclair asked if the porch could be constructed if does not block the neighbor's view.
Mr. Winter stated that the porch will be 3-season, never a four-season.
Berquist stated that he would like to approve this variance by reorienting the setback.
Johnson stated that he would like to see the porch go out the back.
Mr. Winter stated that he has invested a large amount of money into the rear yard and does not
want to construct the porch there.
Berquist stated that he would like to find a viable way to change the interpretation of the side
yard.
Kirchoff responded that the City Attorney would have to be consulted regarding this
interpretation.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
June 30, 1998
Page 3
Watson stated that she would like to table the request so that the matter may be discussed further.
Berquist asked the applicants if they would object to the variance being tabled until the July 14th
meeting.
Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to table the application until the July 14th meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A REQUEST FOR AN 18.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT BLUFF
PROTECTION SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECI~ BILL AND
LINDA JANSEN~ 240 EASTWOOD COURT
Kirchoff presented the report on this item.
Berquist asked if the deck is proposed to be attached to the home.
Kirchoff responded that the deck will be attached to the home.
Berquist questioned the significance of the setback.
Kirchoff responded that the setback intends to protect the bluff from erosion.
Bill Jansen stated that the deck project for the deck began in 1995 when permit was approved for
a deck that they decided not to construct. He noted that it was approved because of the staff
oversight of the bluff protection setback. Mr. Jansen stated that staff did not inform them that the
deck did not meet the setback. He asked that the City maintain its commitment that was made in
1995. Mr. Jansen stated that the current proposal is consistent with the intentions of the bluff
setback. He explained that they decided to build the deck now because they have created a
environmentally-friendly design. Mr. Jansen stated that the house addition was completed in
1995 based upon the idea that they can built a deck in the future. He stated that the current
proposal is consistent with what the bluff setback intentions. Mr. Jansen also explained that they
would not feel comfortable constructing their original proposal because of the excessive amount
of hard surface.
Linda Jansen stated that they revised their plans so that the bluff and existing environmen~ would
not be disturbed.
Mr. Jansen stated that he disagrees with staff's findings in the report. He stated that they do have
a hardship because the deck project is incomplete. He believes that they should not take the full
responsibility of the hardship. He stated further that this proposal is much more
enviromentally-friendly.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
June 30, 1998
Page 4
Ms. Jansen explained that the proposed deck and landscaping intends to preserve the property
and the bluff.
Mr. Jansen stated that the deck will not be visible from neighboring property because the
majority of the deck is located on the ground. He requested permission to complete the project
that he obtained permission for in 1995.
Berquist asked when the bluff setback was adopted and when the permit for the original deck
was approved. He stated that the setback was not enforced on the original application so this
variance should be automatically approved.
Kirchoff responded that the bluff setback was adopted city-wide in 1994 and that the building
permit for the deck was incorrectly approved because the topography was not indicated on the
survey.
Watson stated that the variance should not be an automatic approved because the deck can be
designed smaller.
Berquist stated that there are neighbors with concerns about the variance.
Watson asked if the applicants could make the deck smaller.
Ms. Jansen indicated that the deck was as small as possible.
Berquist asked what was the size of deck that was approved.
Kirchoff responded that it was 14 feet in depth.
Ms. Jansen stated that a lower patio was planned when the building permit for the deck and
addition was approved in 1995.
Berquist asked if the patio would have been approved.
Kirchoff stated that it would not have been approved because it does not meet the setback.
Mr. Jansen stated it is irrelevant.
Berquist stated that he was determining if a patio must meet the bluff setback. He asked if the
deck would have footings.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
June 30, 1998
Page 5
Ms. Jansen stated that the deck would have pier footings and it would be attached to the house.
Watson asked if the lower was deemed a structure.
Kirchoff stated that it is a structure.
Ms. Jansen stated that they intend to protect the bluff and that the deck would change the
situation. She stated that they will be installing vegetation that will prevent erosion.
Berquist stated that he would like to approve the variance based upon the hardship that the city
approval in 1995 created.
Watson stated that the prior city approval did not create a commitment to this variance.
Berquist stated that he was committed to approve the variance because it is similar in size to the
original deck.
Watson stated that she is committed to the lower deck, but she would like to see it smaller.
Johnson asked if the deck could float.
Kirchoff stated that it still would be a structure.
Ms. Jansen stated that if deck is made wider and the depth is decreased, it still will not change
the erosion of the bluff.
Watson asked if something can be placed under the deck to imra'ove the soil so that it can retain
moisture.
Berquist asked what the applicant was planning to da to prevent erosion.
Ms. Jansen stated that they will improve the soft and plant shade tolerant plants to hold the soil.
Berquist asked if they can place restrictions on installing erosion control plantings.
Ms. Jansen stated that they plan to in.~tall landscape fabric and improve the softs.
Watson asked if the applicant is committed to these activities.
Ms. Jansen stated that they are committed to improving the softs.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
June 30, 1998
Page 6
Berquist stated that the improved soil will protect and improve the bluff.
Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot
bluff protection setback requirement for the construction of a deck with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall improve the permeability of the soil under the lower deck.
2. Install Type II erosion control until vegetation has been fully restored on the site.
3. The applicant shall alter the vegetation in the bluff impact zone based upon the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources' best management practices.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to close the public hearing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated May 12,1998. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff
Planner I
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 14, 1998
Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Steven Berquist and Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
A REQUEST FOR AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM ~ 30 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ENCLOSED PORCH~ KlM BEAUCLAIR
(CONTRACTOR} CYIRIS AND CRAIG WINTER (OWNER), 8372 STONE CREEK
DRIVE
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Steve Berquist asked if the side yard setback on the flag lot is 20 feet.
Kirchoff responded that it was 10 feet.
Carol Watson stated that the house on the adjacent flag lot would probably be oriented in such a
way that the side of the house would abut the rear of the subject property and face the driveway.
Berquist stated that it is. logical for a side yard to abut a side yard, not a rear yard. He explained
that this variance would allow the tree canopy to remain in the rear yard.
Willard Johnson stated that the porch should be placed in the rear yard because if a variance is
granted, it will place pressure on the vacant lot.
Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to approve an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot
rear yard setback for the construction of an enclosed porch. Johnson opposed. The motion failed
by a vote of 2 to 1.
Watson stated that the decision was not arbitrary because it is a unique situation. She explained
that this variance will save trees in the back yard. Ms. Watson also stated that in a normal
situation, the side yard would only be 20 feet. Watson stated that the house will probably be
oriented so that the side abuts the rear yard of subject property and the enclosed porch.
Craig Winter stated that the house on the vacant lot could be setback further than 10 feet.
Watson stated that the house has to be built within the required setbacks.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
July 14, 1998
Page 2
Mike Clausen, the home builder, stated that the two lots would have had the choice to share a
driveway if the garage was end-loading.
Johnson stated that thc variance would put pressure on the vacant lot~
Watson asked if the utility easements were occupied.
Kirchoff stated that she is uncertain and that engineering should be consulted.
Berquist stated that the power line and the creek are in the easements.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to close the public hearing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated June 30, 1998. All voted in
favor and the motion carded.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff
Planner I