Loading...
3 Variance, 9221 Lake Riley BlvC 0F CHANHASSE /700 Uarket Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Admlnl=tratlon Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspection= Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax:. 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boul~r~ Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952227.1404 - Planning & Natural Re~oumes Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952..227.1110 PabllcWod= 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.221.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site ;w^v. ci.chanhassen.mn.us TO: FROM: DATE: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Angela Auscth, Planning Intern June 2, 2003 SUB J: Variance g2003-7, 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thc Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 15, 2003, at which the request was tabled. On May 20, 2003, thc request was brought in fzont of the Planning Commiasion to review the revised proposed development The Planning Commission voted five for, two against to approve thc vgriance based on the findings of the staff report. Thc staff report shows text with a strike out through it as well as bold text This is to show thc chan~ that thc applicant m~de from the first Planning Commission meeting to the second meeting. Thc Planning Commission approved the variance request with less tha~ a sup~ majority yom of 75%, with a 5-2 vote. Dt~ to thc fact that thc decision was less than 75%, the Planning Commission's approval serves only as a recommendation to thc City Council. Thc applicant is requesting a lot area variance, a stt~ ffonta~ variance, a lake frontage va_dance, side yard setback variances, and a shoreland setback variance, to demolish an existing non-cxmforming single family home built on a non- conforming lot of ~xnxt and building a new single family home. This 'item appeared before the Plmming Commigsion on April 15, 2003. This Rein was tabled. Thc Commission req~ the applicant work to reduce the amount of impervious surface to the existing 35%. The applicant provided revised plans that met the existing impervious surface, reduced thc lakesh~ setback, main~g the side yard setbacks with the eaves, and provided lakescaping and lan~g. The reque~ a~ before the Plalxnillg Commission with a revised proposal that met the requests on May 20, 2003. Staff and thc Planning Commission are recommending that thc City Council approve the variance request with conditions outlined in thc staff report. Staff had recommended approval of the variance because of thc improvement to the lakeshore setback. This was one of the most important aspects addzr, sseck The applicant has modified the plans to essentially maintain the side yard The CIty of Chanhassen · ^ growing community with ,."!~an lakes, quality schools, a charming do~':ntov;n, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A grot place to live, work, and play. Mr. Todd Gerhardt June 2, 2003 Page 2 setbacks and maintain the existing hard surface coverage. Five of the seven Planning Commissioners concurred with the recommendation. PI.~~IG COMMW~SION UPDATE (Planning Commission Summary minutes were not prepared for the May 20, 2003 meeting. Staff's summary of the May 20, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.) CONSIDER A REQ~T FOR A LAKF_3HORE, SIDE YARD, LOT AREA, LOT W2DTH, AND HARD SURFA~ COVERAGE VARIANCF.3 ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RF31DEN'rIAL SINGI.F. FAMILY, LOCATED AT 9221 LAKE RII.F[Y BOUI.FWARD, TOM Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item, Commission Lillehaug and Claybaugh had questions regarding the eaves setback verses the foundation setback. The setbacks are measured from the eaves and the actual footprint is in one foot from the eaves. This is because when the house was built, the eaves could, even though there's a variance, the eaves could encroach 2~ feet into the setback. Chaxently as the code reads, Section 20-908, if there is a variance granted eaves cannot encroach into the setback, which is why all the setbacks are measured from the eaves rather than the footprint. The impervious sm'face is remaining the same as the existing impervious percentage of 35%. The applicant is proposing to decrease the setback flxma the lake. The applicant is working with Kestrel Design to develop an environmentally sound landscaping and lakeacapiag plan. Commissioner Feik explains that the smmmm is not an enhancement of the existing structure, but that it is really a new structure. Commissioner Tjomhom addressed the fact that the applicant addressed all the concerns the Planning Commission had when this came before them the first time and actually improved all, and dramatically improved the impervious surface and improved also the other ones. The applicant brought Peter MacDonagh of Kestrel Design Group and Dale Mulfinger of Sala Architects to make a brief presentation of the improvements to the site based on the Planning Commissions recommendations. Many of the Commissioners complimented the applicant on addressing the issues that were raised by the Planning Commission at the first meeting April 15, 2003 so thoroughly and comprehensively. The question came down to the hardship of the ~. The property currently has reasonable use as there is a home on the ~; however the applicant would like to increase the size of the home and increase the lakeshore setback. As indicated, they are trying to minimi?~ the intensity on the west side, but you're still increasing the intensity of the non- conformance on the west side. The applicant is increasing the non-conformance and that goes against the ordinance. Mr. Todd Gerhardt June 2, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Papke wanted to be clear on the historical precedence of the Lake Riley neighborhood, whether there have been any other properties along Ia~ke Riley Boulevard there that have been tear downs and m-builds to this extent. Papke wanted to be sure this would not be setting a new precedent of that nature. Aanenson confirmed in her opinion. Chairman Sacchet interpreted the haxdship of the lot as pre-existing. He also added that the most sensitive non-conformance is the lake setback 'Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Harming Commi~ion approves Variance g2003-7 for a 13,535 square foot variance from the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size; 55 foot variance from the minimum 90 foot lot width requirement; a 38 foot variance from the 90 foot lake shore width; a 6'8" foot variance from the 10 foot west side yard setback, for the first 11.5 feet of the house only then reducing the setback to 5 feet for the eaves; a 4-5 foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the nwxmsm~on of a single family home on an existing 6,465 square foot lot based utxm the findings in the staff mtxat and subject to the conditions in the staff mpOl'L RECOMMENDATION City Council action includes approval of one motion: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance g2003- 7 for a 13,535 square foot variance from the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size; 55 foot variance from the minimum 90 foot lot width requirement; a 38 foot variance from the 90 foot lake shore width; a 6'8" foot variance from the 10 foot west side yard setback, for the first 11.5 feet of the house only then reducing the setback to 5 feet for the eaves; a 4-5 foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the recons~on of a single family home on an existing 6,465 square foot lot based upon the findings in the staff report and based upon the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become null and void. , . The submitted survey shall be signed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or landscape architect and shall include: a north arrow; show a 12 inch or greater trees on the site and along the neighboring property lines; and the existing shed to the east. No grading within 37.5 feet of the Ordinary High Water elevation. Type III silt fence must be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I Mr. Todd C~rhar~ June 2, 2003 P~ge 4 silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegemte~ 4. As part of the building permit submittal, a grading, drainage and erosion comxol plan must be prepared for city review and approval. 5. The applicant shall use all reasonable means to protect and save the trees along the western property line. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. A landscape plan must be prepared for city review. 6. Develop and install a landscape and lakescape plan. All voted in favor, except Feik and Lille~g who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts outlined in the staff rq~'c ATrACI:IMENTS le 2. 3. 4. Hndings of Fact Planning Commission Summary bfmutes of April 15, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes of May 20, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report, updstext May 14, 2003 FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship ~s that the property cannot be put to reasonable use becau~ of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topogt~hy. Reasonable use inclnde-s a use made. by a majority of comparable ~ within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-exis~g standards without departing downward from them meet this criterion Finding: The literal enf~t of the ordimmce does create a hardship, since a reason~le use of the ~ for a nw~aslructe, d single-family home on the lot cazmot be deveiop~ without a variance, due to the site constraints of 35 foot lot width and 6,465 squar~ foot lot area. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is baaed are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district However, the subdivision in the Shore Acres development area was done in 1951 prior to the adoption of the ~t standards and many properties, including this one, do not comply with the 90 foot by 125 foot dimensions or the 20,000 square foot lot area requirements. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of lan& Finding: The ability to develop the site will increase the value of the protzavj. However, the use of the parcel for a single-family home is remsonable. The owner's intent is to create a more functional and aesthetically pleasing home site. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The lot was platted in 1951 prior to the ordinance, so the hardship is not self- ~ The existing home was built nonconfomfng as well as the homes on either side of the site which are currently developed with single-family homes. 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 not be ~tal to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is locatexL The proposed house reduce~ the shoreland setback nonconformity while maintaining the existing side yard setbacks. Only two properties within 500 feet of the site are 20,000 square feet in lot area. All properties are developed with single-family homes. The proposed grading will improve drainage in the area. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially in~ the congestion of the public streets or in~ the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair ~ values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially in~ the congestion of the public street. The property will be increasing the lake view of adjacent property. CHANItASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REG~ M ~:P:TING SUMMARY MINUTES APRIl. 15, 2003 Chairman Sacehet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve IAllehaug, Rich Slagle, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRF.~ENT: Kate Aanenson, Comnamity Development Director, Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Plmme~, mad Angle Auseth, Planner PUBLIC P~NT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Jerry & Janet Paulsen Kurt Papke 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 1131 Homesteafl ~e PUBLIC HI*ARING: CONSmER A RgOUEST FOR A ~ ~A~ ~~GE V~~ ON PROPER~ ~~ ~ P~ ~ D~~~~ ~~~ AT ~2 Angie Auseth presented the staff retxm on thia item. Commi~sioners had discussions regarding timeline of permit approvals and building inspections, the tmacess by which the city approves building permits, and storm water runoff issues. The applieam presented their case outlining the timeline and sketches of the property. Blackowiak moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commi~ion approve Variance $2003-6 with the following conditions: . That the applicant will work with the City Forester and staff to detea~ne best placerm~ for additional trees and/or shrubs. 0 No conversions of this space in the fiw. rre would be allowable except to revert back to green space. MI voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC lt~&RING: CONSLDER A REQUI-qT FOR A LAg~:~HORE~ SIDE YARD~ LOT ARE~ LOT WIBTH~ AND HARD ~tJRFA~ ~VERAGE VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ I~I~IDli'._NTIAL :!RNGLE FAMH~Y~ LOCATED AT 9221 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD~ TOM AND ~tJE SUTER. Angle Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Commissioners had concerns regarding the legality of the non-conforming status of the lot, the footprint size and i .mpervious coverage. Alison Blackowiak brought up the issue of lakescaping and Uli Sachet questioned the sexback from the lake. The applicant presented his reasons for the need of vafiance~ and the house design on the lot and answered concerns brought up by the commission and staff, len~ Paulsen Planning Commission Summary Minutes - April 15, 2003 and Debbie Lloyd spoke at the public hearing. Their concerns were related to saving the trees, the number of variances being asked for, and reasonable use of the property. Mrs. Lloyd felt that what is currently on the lot should be considered reasonable use. The Planning Commission's most important issue was the amount of hard surface coverage, and not wanting to increase that amount, but recogn~ i?~! the fact that there was benefit from the applicant moving the house pad away from the lakeshore. Slagle moved, Claybangh seconded that the Planning _Commi~on table the Variance #20(~7 and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the project to maintain the current percentage of hard surface coverage. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimo~y with a vote of 6 to 0. Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff to look at reducing the increase and the intensity of the 4.4 feet on the southwest side of the lot in addition to maintain the 34.9 percent of hard coverage. Commissioner Claybaugh's position was that by moving the house ~ back from the lakeshore high water mark is a positive. He was willing to entertain the side yard and other associated variances, but not willing to take those in conjunction with the intensity of the hard cover surface. Whether the applicant addresses the square footage on the house or looks at more organic materials for pads and patios, that's the applicant's call. Commissioner Slagle asked staff to double check the roof overhangs in relation to the setback. Commissioner Sacchet asked that when staff and the applicant work on the idea of the lakeshore landscapin~ they take into consi~on the trees. PUBLIC I~ARING: CQNS~mlr. R A REQIj'F..qT FOR SIj'BDIVISIQN OF 1.56 ACRES INTO 2 SINGI.R FAM~.Y LOTS WITH VARIAN_f~,~ ON PRQPERTY ZQNED RSF~ ~;INGI.E FAMH.Y REb'IDir._NTIAL AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF ~ANTA Fl/; TRAII.~ LOCATED AT 7551 GItE&T PLA~IS BOIfl.~ARD~ ERNEST PIVEC~ LA HAYE ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Charles Stin~m Bart Blinstrup Nancy Manara Gladys Hanna David Krunk Tom Manarin Wyck Linder Steve & Nancy Rogers 4723 Eastwood Road, Minnetonh 18736 The Pines, Fxlen Prairie 7552 Caeat Plains Boulevard 400 Santa Fe Trail 7561 Great Plains Boulevard 7552 Cu'eat Plains Boulevard 7550 Great Plains Boulevard 7520 Gre~ Plains Boulevard Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Feik asked for clarification on the abandonment of the road, that would be abandoned equally to the ~es north and south, and for other ways to divide the pmpew] without variances. Commissioner Blackowiak asked staff to clarify the wording as it related to connection and assessment charges. Commissioners had a lengthy discussion over the dedication of fight-of-way for driveway access and vacation request Commissioner Sacchet was concerued with the preservation of trees on the site, canopy coverage, and grading. Ernie Pivec, the applicant was available to answer questions. In the public hearing Charles Stint. m. a developer Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 CON$_LDI~ A REQUF~T FOR A LART~HOR~ SIDE Y~, ~T ~ ~T ~~ ~ ~~ ~A~ CO--GE V~~ ON ~O~~ ~~ ~F~ R~-g~~I. S~GLE F~X~ ~~~ AT ~1 LA~ RH~ BO~~~ ~M ~ ~ ~ ~e A~ p~n~ ~e ~ ~~ on ~ i~ S~chet: ~fi~ ~m s~. Lille~g: I m s~ Sm ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ 2.4 ~ now, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~so exmn~g ~ 11.5 f~t ~m of ~ ho~ ~ Z4 f~ ~7 Aug.: ~ 2.4 is go~ to go ~k m 3.3, ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ m 3.3 ~ weR. ~ ~ it ~ll go ~ ~ ~. Li~e~ug: So ~y'm m~ ~ ~7 Au~: lint ~e ~v~ ~ ~ ~. S~chet: ~y o~ q~fi~ ~m s~ S~e: I jmt w~t a c~c~. ~ i~om ~ ~ we w~ w~ng ~ ~ w~ w~ for my. A~: R's 35 ~. Sl~e: No, w~ w~ it ~f~? ~ ~ ~ we w~ ~ Au~: M.9 ~L ShOe: Ohy. S~~ ~ ~~ w~? Au~: R's 6 ~ f~ S~c~: R w~ ov~ ~ ~t ~. Au~: Oh I'm so~. ~ ~7 S~heR Y~. Aug~ F m s~, it w~ 41 ~~ I a~lo~. ~ay~u~: I ~ve a co~le q~~ ~. ~'s ~ ~. You i~ ~ we'~ ~~ m ~ ~v~ f~ ~e ~~. ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~v~ wh~ R w~ I ~ 2 f~t ov~~, ~ ~ ~ c~~? Au~: ~ ~ g~. Clay~u~: ~ ~e ~ f~~t ~y clx? Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Auseth: The footprint is 1 foot in from the eaves. Claybaugh: Okay. Is that what it currently is and what is proposed for that setbaclC? What I'm trying to determine is if the eaves have been shorten up but the footprint is still closer to the property line. Auseth: We did not address the eaves last time so. Claybaugh: I'll ~_ddress that to the applicant. Secondly there was a handout here for us when we got to the meeting here from Kestrel Design and I'm not sure if I should address this to the applicant but I'll give it a try here with staff. It says that the, due to the hard surface intensification above the city standard of 25 percent, we'd identified that they were 35 percent over the hard surface coverage and I was just trying to correlate that 25 percent figure on this report wondering, the applicant as well. Alright, that's all the questions I have. Saccbet: Bruce, any questions? Feilc Yes I have a few. Page 7. The top. F'Lrst line in the first paragraph you talk about this is enhancing the structure. That's really sort of a mistlOiiler. It's really a new struco, n~ is it not? Auseth: Yes but the garage is existing so it's an existing lot of record. Feik: But what we are, the proposal envisions raising the entire existing residence, is that correct? Auseth: Correct Feik: Also on page 7, the second paragraph- The second to last line we talk about the applicant is proposing to decrease the east side yard setback. Do you really mean, are we, let's see. Decreasing the variance or are we increasing the setback? Auseth: It was at 3 foot 3 currently. Feik: And it will be going to 5. Auseth: It will be going to. Peik: So we'd be decreasing the variance. Auseth: Decreasing the variance. Feik: Or increasing tbe sethack. Au,seth: Decreasing the variance. As well as the setback. Feik: Increasing the setback. Auseth: Oh sorry, yes. Sorry. Sacchet: The good thing. It's getting better. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Feilc And then we spoke today. Would you please summarize, if you would, our brief conversation regarding the eaves and the setback requirement and how the eaves can and cannot project in that setback please. Auseth: Sure. When the house was built, the eaves could, even though there's a variance, ~ eaves could encroach 2 ½ feet into the setback. ~tly as the code reads, Section 20-908, if there is a variance granted eaves cannot encroach into the setback, which is why we are measuring all setbac~ from the eaves rather than the footprint. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? Papke: Yeah I have a question about the hard cover. We're down to 35 percent Do we care where on the lot that hard cover is? It seems as if by moving the house back away from the lake, the pervious area is now closer to the lake. Does this make any diffe~mce in our consideration? Auseth: It's beneficial to have the i~ous suffac~ away from the lake. Papke: Okay. So from that aspect, beyond just the number, we also are i .reproving where the impervious surface is located? Aanenson: That's where the staff came down for the favorable recommendation. Sacchet: Any questions Bethany? Just to be real clear. It appears to me like the applicant's addressed all the concerns we had when this came in front of us and actually i%-r~roved all, and dramatically improved the i .m1~'vious surface and ' .rmproved also the other ones. Is that a reasonable statement to make? Auseth: That's con~t Sacchet: Okay. That's all the questions. Thank yom commission, make a presentation, please come forward. record please. Please speak into the microphone. If the applicant wants to address the State your name and address for the Tom Suter: Yeah, Tom Suter and I've got a couple o~er people hem, if you could come up. Peter MacDonagh and Dale Mulfinger. Dale was the architect on the project. Peter's the environmental design landscape architect that's on the project that we've since add_,xl to the team. At the last meeting this handout that I provided tried to mmnna_fize the key issues that the committee brought up at the last meeting from a summary perspective and let me try to address those. Hard cover. We reduced the hard cover from the prior request of 41 percent to a 35 percent level which is what the existing hard cover is. We changed the, and the way we did that is we changed the patio area nearest the lake to become a pervious surface. Now we're going to address some other materials but Peter will address that. We changed the walkway to the lake making it impervious with possible exception of the stair steps. We do that for safety reasons so we don't have some safety issues there, and we're changing the walkway from the garage to be a Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 partial pervious surface as well. On the lakescaping and landscaping, which was also brought up at the meeXing, we have since submitted a letter as part of the packet which you have which addresses our interest and desire to deal with a lakescaping strategy and to develop both the in water as well as out of water buffer zones to address that. We've since then also retained Peter and the Kestrel Design Group which has extensive experience with wetland, lake and restoration projects and design characteristics. We've dealt with the tree issue which was raised next to us to the southwest, which was on the Hamilton side~ We've had 3 separate arborism show up. Give us opinions on that. We've also solicited input from Jill, the city arborist and we've come away with a final conclusion at this point is that several of the trees need to be u'immed and pruned. They'll all be retained at this point until we stake the yard, and stake the house at which point between Jim and Laura Hamilton and Sue and myself will come up with a ~ determination of how to deal with it. At the time we met with Jill, because of the nature of the trees, the type of trees, Jill's recommendation was actually that they could be probably removed. They're not a good tree. We could replace it with s~ of better quality but since we don't own those trees, that would not be a proper reco~on since that was not written into the report. Setbacks and overhangs, all the cmrent plans currently identify the overhangs and their i .mpact on setbacks because of the request. Curtain setbacks have been changed and it's referenced in the staff report. We do have to go back beyond the ~ garage stmcuxre for mmsifional area for suppo~ and some other interior characteaisfics which Dale can certainly ~_ddress, and ~-m we bring it in off of that previous setback to i .reprove the intensification on the southwest side. We've also brought in from the east side, from the Baker side and brought it in and tried to minimiTg the impact over there. The overall height of the ~ which wasn't brought up at the meeting but needed to be addressed, after doing the illustrations Dale's group came back and our feedback right now is that we're at 29 feet 6 inches, measmed the way the city wants it meas~ against I think the standard or the maxilnum's 3:5 feet. So we're well within that. Th~ other side note that we want to make hea~ which I think is i .nExa'tant to understand is that our desire is to not just take the home, demolish it and mm it into the landfill 1~111 material. My wife along with others are working on a demolition strategy that is ~ support from the Green Institute, from a recycling perspective so that we can recycle and reclaim as much of the current structure as we can so that it's just not going in and being ~ in a lan~ and we're quite a ways down the path on that. At that point I'd like Peter to address his handout that he put together for us which starts to address the landscape, the lakescaping issues at a high level and some of the things that we've at least in concept have agreed to. Since we've only been in a contractual relationship with Peter's organization for about 2 weeks now, we don't have that much finely detailed but we can talk about the concepts that we plan on using. Peter MacDonagh: Peter Mac .Donagh. Hello commissioners. With the Kestrel Design Group. Adjunct faculty of the University of Minnesota Landscape Architecture Depot. The four issues that we addressed in terms of the hard smface and trying to mi~ those was using infiltration, evaporation, detention and retention of the runoff. The first item that we looked at was mitigating some of the roof runoff and we plan to harvest some of that with cisterns. As it says here in the report, that would be incorporated into the architecture, so it would be screened and that would be used for gardening p~. Rain gardens, so downspouts. Some of the water that will be harvested from there will be in rain gardens. Rain gardens are very shallow retention basins for lack of a better term but they're only about 6 inches tall and they typically dissipate the water within 72 hours so it's not a mosquito breeding deal. Then the access path to Lake Riley. I have to mention that. What we have in mind is an organic substrate. Something that again has a high infiltration rate. I~gher than tuff grass and as Tom mentioned, the steps for safety p~ would need to he a hard surface. And then the other two, or other three items, side yard, sidewalks and back yard patio. We are c~y investigating Ecostone which is a pervious pavement is another word for it. Ecostone just ha~ to be a proprietary product and it will Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 mitigate it's runoff for about 70 pe~ of storm events. It's a higher infiltration rate than turf grass. It will mitigate. It will take a 1 inch to 2 ½ inch rain event. That's a long term number. In the front end it's going to take a lot more than that before the bed gets satm'ated. So it's outwardly appearing as a hard sm'face but it's self mitigate. And the other items that we're going to be looking at is lakescaping. Ozrmntly there is no buffer on the lake, and we are planning, the owner is planning to put buffer where none currently exists, and incoxpomte into the buffer, we also will have some of these rain gardens. They'll be an appmpfi~ landscape solution. Not a wild land look but more of a biomorphic garden look. And so as I said, that will be aboaee the ordinary high water level so it will mitigate more runoff from the lot. And then the last part is that the owner is willing to have the house function as a demonstration site for some of these techniques and as a person who promotes these in our work, this is an unusual thing and we are very glad that he's willing to do that, and that's an opporumity I think for Chanhas~n to use it first as a lakescaping demonstration area. For the lake in general and Chanlmssen in particular. Or in general rather. And then the other item is some of these infiltration measme, s that I've outlined. Any questions? Papke: Could you define biomorphic for me? Excuse my ignorance. Peter MacDonagh: It's organic shapes rather tha~ a Euclidian geometry. How'd I do? Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just wanted to address something in the retx~ here. Let's see here, with the second paragraph down. It says surface intensification above the city ~ of 25 percent and I was just trying to correlate those figures. I had 35 percent in the staff mpo~ that we were over. Tom Suter. My understanding is that the city standard is 25 percent and since we knew that going in that we were over the current, we're 10 pewem over I think on the existing smicmre, we felt that it was i .mportant that we went maybe beyond what would be ordinary and customary from the landscaping perspective. That's why we brought ~1 Group in to help deal with the. fact that we are over 25 percent limit. Did that? Claybaugh: Yes. The cisterns, are those above gr~_de- or below grade? Peter Mac~: They're above grade. Claybaugh: They're above grade. What type application are you considering for that? Peter MacDonagh: The most common retrofit is a rain ~ but these, they're something like that. They have a spigot on them and gravity flow. Sacchet: Any other questions? Anything else from the applicant? Actually I have a question. Now just to be clear, you pointed out that the partially pervious/i .-?ervious surface they were actually calculated as i .mpervious for the calculations. Or how did that work? Really more a question for staff but I think you implied that even though they were partially pervious, they were still calculated into the figures for i .mpervious? Carrect? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: And then the other that's more an architect question. You're actually changing the roof of the garage or you're just taking offthe part of the eave or what are you going to do there? Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Dale Mulfinger: I'm Dale Mulfin~ with Saul Architects and also the University of 1Vfinnesota. What we're trying to do is create a look of a story and a half house as viewed from the street and a one story with walkout as viewed from the lake side. So to the extent that the house rises, if you will, 3 floors. By that I mean basement, first and second, that only occun if you will in the middle of the house and neither from the lake nor from the street will you see the highest portion of the roof. Getting back to your specific question regarding the garage. Yes, we're taking the low roof off the garage and we're putting a habitable roof, by that I mean the equivalency of a storage truss, over the garage so it's living in the roof. It's not literally a one full floor. Sacchet: So he gets a new roof and you make it more functional in the process. Dale Mulfinger: Yes. Sacchet: That answers the question. Tom Suter. And then shrinking the overhang... Sacchet: To bring it in, got it. Claybaugh: As long as we're addressing arehitecnmfl details. Coming back to the overhang. As staff stated previously, I just wanted to clarify as we're measuring to the eaves previously, that wasn't the requirement. I'm curious as to where the footplint on the existing building is in relation to the lot line. How is that changing? Tom Surer. The garage is staying where it's at because of the foundation. Claybaugh: Right, I understand that. Tom Surer: We're salvaging thai. In the previous ~ it was writI~-n thai it was a 4.4 foot setback h was then brought to the attention thai the eaves had to count against that which is why the number became 2.4 because it's 2 foot eave on the house today. But if you take the...out of the picture for a minute because there's some confusion with that. Claybaugh: But is the footprim any closer to the lot line is what we're Izying to clear up. Tom Sutec. The back end of the garage we're having an extension pi__oce, of somewhere between 9 and 11 feet and then at that point we're coming in a foot to a foot and a half ~ than what. In the past, in the previous it was going to be a straight line, if you will, all the way down. Now we bring it in a foot to a foot and a haft down that side. So we tried to minimize the intensification which was raised at the prior meeting. Claybaugh: Right. Tom Sutec. But without, if we bring it in much ~ you pretty much compromise the strucun~ internally with having it usable. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: If there are no further questions, do you have anything more to Add_? Thank you very much. Now this is not a public hearing, since it's an old item of business but if anybody from the Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 public would want to address this item, please come forward at this point. State your name and address. Please sir, if you want to. Yeah, from up ~ please, ff you don't mind. If you want to state your name and address for the record please. Dennis Bakec. My name is Dennis Baker and I live at 9219 Lake Riley Boulevard which is on the east side of the subject property. Ail I' d really like to say is I've talked to the Stm~'s and feel that what they plan to do is definitely an i ,mprovon~ut in the property. The ~ presently is too close to the lake, which is the most important thing. To the point where you can almost fish off their declc And they're going to i .re?rove that. They're going to i .reprove the lakeshore and the design of the house is very appealing and my wife and I have 50-60 feet between our house and the property line on the east side of the subject propeliy, which is plenty of buffer. So I'd just like to say I hope you approve it for him. Sacchet: Thank you very muc~- Anybody else want to speak to this item? Doesn't appear to be so I'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments? Discussion. How about we start with you Craig. Clayhaugh: First off I'd like to compliment the applicant by addressing the issues that we raised so thoroughly, comprehensively. It would always be nice to see more progress but certainly given the effort that you've put into it I feel that I can support it. I still struggle with the square footage on the prope~, having gone to a two story. But at this stage I am prepared to support it. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: First off I'd like to say that I don't think I've ever seen an applicant put as much detail and work and effort into their plan. If it looks as if, the renderings that we saw last time looks, it's going to be gorgeous. But I would like to go through the staff report a little bit as it relates to the findings because I'm having some difficulty. Is there a hardship? Well the ~ already has reasonable use. I go down to number C~ Does it increase the value of the property? Absolutely. Go down to number D. It is serf creamd. I look at this as if a new cx~ns~om Would we approve this if this was a new consUucfiom We are raising the entire existing habitable ~ and I don't think we would approve this if it was a new suucua-e. I think it's too much on too little land and I can't support it as it is. I think it's gorgeous. I think: I'd love to live there. I said that last time but I think it's too much on too small of a piece of dirt so I cannot support it as presented. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve. Liilehaug: I agree with Bruce. The applicant's increas~ the house size right now, lilm Commissioner Feik said. They do have reasonable use of that property based on the existing size of the house. As indicated, they are trying to minimize the inmns~ on the west side, but you're still increasing the intensity of the non-conformance on the west side. No mA__m~r_ how we look at it, it's increasing the non-conf~ce and that goes against the ordinance and I do not support it. It's awfully close to that ~ line. You indicated that you want to use this as demonstration purposes, which is great but I don't want to use it as a demonstration purpose to show how we go in direct conflict with non-conformances and increasing them. I do not support it. And I hit on this last time also. When I looked through this report there's a table in here indicating adjacent properties and their non-conformances. By looking at that table I don't know if they were variances that were granted with the property when it was developed or if they were after the fact variances so that's why I have a hard time attaching these after the fact variances for the non- conforming lot with this property because if we grant these variances that are already due to the Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 non-conformances on the size of the lot, then we're kind of setting a standard here that it really doesn't indicate. Give us any indication of were those variances attached when the pmpe~ was developed or are they after the fact because I don't, maybe Roger our city attorney would disagree with me but I won't support granting those alter the fact variances in there. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich. Slagle: I just have a couple thoughts, trwst and foremost, I would comment the applicant and his team for their thorough work, with the exception of the side yard setbacks, I would like to use it if we could as a model because I do think the sensitivities of the lake are being taken into consideration. The setback from the water. The i .m!m~ve~t if you will of that I think is really what's driving me to support this, along with in tandem the concerted effort, I mean really almost beyond what I've seen before of this applicant and his team so I'm prepared to suplx~ staff's reconnnendation. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Kurt. Papke: Beautiful project. I just have one questio~ i'm not quite clear on the historical precedence here. Have there been any other properties along Lake Riley Boulevard there that have been tear downs and re-builds to this extent? Fmjust not quite clear. Fm very sensitive to the precezience issue but I just want to make sure I'm clear being a new commissioner here tonight as to what you know, has there been a previous precedent of a simil~ nature. Aanenson: Sharmeen's worked probably on most of those variances so ~ indication is, they've either been additions ~r tear down's. It's similar to some of the ones in Carver Beach that are on Papke: Okay, so in the table he~ all Of the...issue, this would not be setting a new ~ of that nature? Aanenson: That's an opinion you could form, sure. Papke: That's it. Sacchex: Bethany, do you have something to Tjomhorn: Well I'm coming on the tail end of this. I was here actually for the first presentation so I remember a little bit of what happened and I just think it's an i ,mpmv~ to the community. I think it's an old ~ and I like what you're doing with it. I like making things better. I like that you've paid so much attention to the lakeshore and the natural habitat around it and so I'm inclined to suPlx~ staff's recommendation. Sacchex: The concerns that were raised by Bruce and Steve, the hardship, the self czeated, I would interpret those to be pre-existing. And I would agree with you Bruce that if this would be a new applicant we would not be able to approve it. However, the situation is pre-existing. It's a hardship that it's a non-confomiug lot. It's a non-conforming stmcmm and I would argue that the non-conformance is reduced because I think the most sensitive non-conformance is the lake setbaclc I mean the main concern f~r the city is the distance to the lake. I mean that's the most critical thing and that's dramatically i .reproved and considering that every other one of the non- conformances have been to some extent mitigated with the revision of the plan, I'm definitely in support of this proposal. Yes, it does increase the value of the property but I would argue that if Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 changes are not made for the prime purpose of increasing the value, I mean the owner is doing that to live there. To i .m!xrove the property to live them. Not to i .reprove it to get a monetary gain. And I do want to commend the applicant for really addressing all the c. onc. ems we brought up hist time. I mean that in itself is exemplary and needs to be ~ so I'm in very strong favor of passing this. So with that I am willing to take any more discussi~ Feilc Well I guess I'm wondering what is, what's the compelling reason here? We're bringing the house back from the lake. That's a good thing. Sacchet: Definitely. Feik: Every other variance is inca'easing. Every other variance is it~e~sing. I don't see any compelling reason here. Sacchet: I wouldn't agree that the other ones are increasing. Feik: The si& yard setbacks are getting smaller. The footprint of the ~ is getting larger. I don't see quite frankly the compelling realaon to go forward. Sacchet: Maybe I missed something. Feik: And please help me out here because I'm having a tough time with this one. Sacchet: Let's address this. Lillehaug: If I can add too. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: We had a resident to the east say that his ~ and setback was increasing between the houses. I wish we would have heard from the resident on the west because it's the opposite for that house. Feik: Yes it is. Lillehaug: So with my concern is the non-conformance is increasing on that side of the ~ is that property owner, you're increasing the length of the house on that side and inc~.asing the intensity of that non-conformance on that one side of the property line. So yes, I agree that it's great to move this house away from the shoreline, but you're adversely affecting that direct adjacent property and that's one of my, that's my main concerto Feik: I would prefer to see the applicant buy 10 feet from the noighbor to make it work. Sacchet: I don't know whether 10 feet helps the other side frankly. Feik: This is 10 feet. Sacchet: I would argue that the setback is not really intensified in terms of how much setback there is. It's intensified over how long a stretch them is a closer setback. Is that an acomim statement to make? And that was one thing that was held against the applicant last time when 10 Plmaning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 this was in front of us, and I do believe that the applicant made a sincere effort to reduce that encroac~t. Feik: Oh I don't disagree with the effort. Sacchex: In that sense I think there is a balance between the intemification and the mitigation. And that weighed against the big plus with taking the house back that I think that's where Fm balancing. Craig, do you want to odd_ something? Claybaugh: Yeah I'd like to just direct the commissioners to page 4. Come back to the permitted use. One of the things that we spent a little time on at the first meeting, and haven't covered this meeting was what the definition of standards for single family dwelling are in 2003 versus what they were in 1951 when this snuame was built. Okay, time hasn't stood still. The standards haven't remained the same so to say that the applicant has reasonable use by today's smnda,nts, that point can be argued. Granted, it is a single family dwelling. So on and so forth. It has different attributes for a single family dwelling, and the benefit but are they of today's standards? Okay. The house was built in 1951. It's reasonable to think that something is going to have to happen to that ~ in the near future. It's not going to remain as is. We nm into this situation around Carver Beach fairly frequently. It's just they are undersized lots. It's a difficult situation to address. We snuggle with these each time but that's the point that carries the most weight with me is that by today's standards it's reasonable for them to want to place a new s~ on there with increased square footage. I identified that, I straggled with the extent of the square footage. Having it be a two story with the size of foottrint, but I do assign a lot of weight to the upper and the mitigating factors that the applicant has introduced to the project and for me it balances out. Sacchex: Thanks Craig. Feik: One quick comm~.~t and then I'll be quiet. Sacchet: You can always vote against it. Feik: Just for a rebuttal for what you're saying is, our ordinance says what is acceptable is 600 square feet and they clearly have 837 in the existing snucutm so I would sram that it cetlainly does have a reasonable use. Claybaugh: But that's 600 square feet for a two story, 960 for a rambler. Feik: With that, thank you. Sacchet: You can stand on your point I appreciate that. Any other points? With that I would like to have a motion if possible. Claybaugh: Make a motion~ Sacch~ Please. Clayhaugh: Make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance g2003-7 for the 13,535 square foot variance. It encompasses the first tmragraph with conditions 1 through 6. Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion and a second. Slagle: I have a point of clarification. Sacchet: Need clarification, okay. Shgle: With that change of eaves from the 4.4 to 2.4, is that taken into consideration in thig first paragraph? So we're not missing anything. Sacehet: Good point. Aanenson: You referenced the plans dau~l in the staff report. They would reflect the canect dimension if you want to reference those in the motion for clarity. Sacchet: Okay, so it refers to the fight plan. Okay. Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Co_mminnion approves Variance 02003-7 for a 13,535 square foot variance ~ the 20,000 square foot minimnm lot size; 55 foot variance from the minimum 90 foot lot width requirmae~ a 38 foot variance from the 90 foot lake shore width; a 6'8" foot variance hn~n the 10 foot west side yard setback, for the first ll.S feet of the house only then reducing the setback to $ feet for the eaves; a 4-5 foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot shorelami setback for the reconstruction of a single family home on an existing 6,465 square foot lot based upon the findings in the staff report and based upon the following conditions: A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shah become null and voicL . The submitted survey shall be signed by a licensed surveyor, en~neer, or landscape architect and shall include: a north amaw; show a 12 inch or greatm' frees on the site and along the neighboring property lines; and the existing shed to the east . No grading within 37.5 feet of the Ordinary High Water elevation. Type IH silt fence must be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side ~ lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. . As pan of the building permit submittal, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval . The applicant shall use all reasonable means to protect and save the trees along the western property line. Tree pwtection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. A landscape plan must be prepared for city review. 6. Develop and install a landscape and lakescape plan. All voted in favor, except Feik and l illehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. 12 CiTY OF STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 4/15/03 5/20/03 CCDATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 05/13/03 By:. A~., M.S., _1 LOCATION: an ~0 18 foot shoreland setback variance (~5 5/-foot setback); ~ 6 foot 8 inch w~t side yard setback variance (4- 3 foot 4 inch setback); a 4- 5 foot east side yard setback variance (6 5 foot setback); a 13.535 square foot lot area - variance (6,465 square foot lot); a 55 foot lot width variance (35 foot width); and 38 foot lake shore lot width variance (52 foot width) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single family home on a lakeshom lot. (All proposed setbacks are measured from the eaves of the structure) 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Tom and Sue Suter 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhass~ .MN 55317 .Ltl PRF.~ENT ZONING: Re~sidential Single-Family .RSF ACREAGE: 0.15 (6,465 sq. fL) DENSITY: N/A Thc applicant is requesting to demolish an existing non-conforming single family home built on a non-conforming lot of rccord and building a new single family home. This item ~ before thc Planning Commission on April 15, 2003. This item was tabled. The Commission required the applicant work to reduce the amount of impervious surface to the existing 35%. q~ne new proposal meets this request. The new stmcmm will require setback variances. Stuff is recom~g approval with conditions. Notice of the public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within ~ feel LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION'IN DECISION-MAKING: The ~.City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the h,rd~ of m'oof is on the annlic~nt tn ~hnw that they rne~.t the gtand0Lrds__, ill the clr~l~ ~ lake Riley rail Surer Variance 82003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 2 PROPOSAL .. · Ail setback distances are from the eaves of the stru~nre while the foundation is recessed in one foot from the eaves. e cant s u n an ~~m ~L a ~k v~~ v~~ ~m ~e ~,~ ~~ f~ lot ~ a 38 f~t ~ ~m ~ v~~ ~ ~e ~ f~ ~ sh~ ~; ~d a 55 f~t ~~t. The applicant is planning to demolish an existing nonconforming stmctu~ and ~ebuild a single family dwelling creating a new foot print The existing ~ will remain in the cutlet location; the applicant is proposing to construct the proposed dwelling unit ~n~nhed to the existing garage. Shoreland The applicant is planning to reduce the existing nonconforming rear yard (shoreland) setlmck of the dwelling unit from 28 feet to 6-5 57 feet fxom the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW). The foot print of the smacmre is proposed to be located at a 58 foot setback from the OHW. Side Yard The east side yard setback of the existing garage is 6 feet, while the west side yard setback is 4 feet 4 inches. The existing home to be demolished has aa 8 foot setback on its west side and 3 feet 3 inches on its east side p~ +k ........ ~ .......... + .... ..~ +k.. ~..-..+ +k~ .....u~..+ :~ a ': g'~'~* '~* .:a .... .a ~,k~.a. ;.~. ,~ ...... a ~ ..... The current ordinance reads that eaves may not encroach into the required setback ff a variance is granted. Therefore, the applicant is requesting setbacks from the eaves; the foot print of the structure will be located I foot back from the proposed setbacks. The applicant is requesting a 3 foot 3 inch west side yard setback to continue the roofline for 113 feet of the house as a Iransition area; at the comer of the house the applicant is proposing to decrease the setback to 5 feet, which would locate the foot print of the structure at a 6 foot setback. The applicant is requesting an east setback of 5 feet, which would locate the foot print of the structure at a 6 foot setback. Hard Surface Coverage Suter Variance #2003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 3 uf,,b, ,.,,,[..,L...,.,,,q,.,u.,.,,,,. aw ,~,,q.j.b,~.,,u,,.zzz~) ,.,. .Lv.v., .b, v,.&LJ. LU.J.~,'b, .L.LV'"" ,,.Ub' ,..,.., t,., --.-,--,,.,. u ~.. · ..5+~in +~e, P.~F d:.:~. The applicant is prop(min~ to keep the ~ hm'd SLL,~GCe coverage at 35% at the request of the Plannin~ CommksJon. The proposed plans indicate a stone walkway on the east elevation of the home. The applicant would like to note that this is a worst case scenario and is working with a landscape architect to develop a more hard surface sensitive plan. From Yard 30 ft 15.9 ft 1.5.9 ft Shorcland 75 ft 28 ~ 55 West Side lO ft 4.4 ft Yard Setback ~4 East Side 10 it 6 ft 5 Yard Setback ~t House Area 600 sq it 837.8 sq it .L,S,.,.,,~..V u,,.], ,,.~. Note~ The west sMe yard setback for the maJorfly of the lmme b 6 G2t, 5 feet with the eaves, however, there is an 11.5 ~ secliaa thai minim ai the 4.4 fl sdbac~ 32 ft rooffine un~ there is a 90 degree break ~r the roofline. Applicable ~tions Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-73 Nonconforming lots of record Chapter 20 Article VII Shoreland Management District Section 20-505 (e) Hard surface coverage Section 20-908 5 (a) Yard Regulations BACKGROUND The property is located in the Shoreland Management District in the Shore Acres development, platted July 1951, which is zoned Residential Single-Family, RSF, permitting low density single family detached dwelling units. Lake Riley is a Recreational Development Lake. The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record with a lot area of 6,465 square feet. The minimum lot Surer Variance g2003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 4 area for a riparian, sewered lot is 20,000 square feet. The property is 35 feet in width and 157.5 feet in depth, with 52 feet of lake frontage. Minimum requirements are 90 feet in width and 125 feet in depth, with 90 feet of lake frontage. The property has a variance #92-2 allowing the existing garage to encroach 14 feet into the fixmt yard setback, 6.5 feet into the side ymxl setback, and a 7% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum c~verage allowed in an RSF district. Site Characteristics The lot is long and narrow, 35 foot width by 125 foot depth. The topography of the site slopes from a high elevation of 880.2 at the front (northern) property line to a low of 865.3 at the Ordinary High Water elevation (southern). The dimensions of the site are 35 foot street frontage width, 50 foot shoreland width, and an average of 157.5 foot depth. There is a row of trees along the western property line in close proximity to the proposed structure. As part of the proposed plan, the taa:~ are to be saved. However, the trees may need to be pruned and have branches removed to permit the consmiction of the home~ The property owner is planning to work with the neighbors and a ~pe architect team to mare the tree~, as well as, create a landscape design plan for the property. The applicant has worked out an agreement with the east neighbor to include grading encroachment onW the adjacent property. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Residential Single-Family. A single family home with a two car garage can be legally eonsmaeted on the site. The standards for a single family residential district requires a minimum 960 square foot living area for a one-story rambler design; minimum 1,050 square foot living area for a split level design; and minimum 600 square foot first floor living area for a two-story design. The regulations also states "a two car garage must be provided with the single-family smacmm." Based on the regulations, there is a 950 square foot buildable area allowed on the lot acco~g to the literal enforcement of the code. A single-family smicmre including a two car garage would not be developable on the lot. A reasonable use of the property, while maintaining the existing garage structure and reconstruction of the house, is not possible (see attached survey). Suter Variance ~e2003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 5 15'787 14257' 14256 14097' 1377'4 16376 13976 14875 11623 11326 16753 1189O 17179 Lot Area The ordinance requires riparian lots to maintain an area of 20,000 square feet, street frontage of 90 feet and lake shore frontage of 90 feet. The subject site has an area of 6,465 square feet, street frontage of 35 feet, and lake shore frontage of 52 feet. This is an existing lot of record. Neighborhood Setbacks Staff surveyed city records to determine if lot area, lot frontage, side yard and shoreland setback variances had been granted in the area. There are many variances approved along Iatke Riley Blvd. including area, width and setbacks, so staff limited its search to within 500 feet of the parcel. This survey mined up the following cases. Suter Vm'ian~ ~)03-7 April 15, 2003 Page 6 Address Variance Variance Lot Area Shoreland File Number Setback 9235 Lake 1986-1 25 foot shoreline setback variance 36,682 sq ft 50 ft Riley Blvd 9247 Lake 1989-1, 89-1 Setbaelm: 14 foot front yard, 7 10,320 sq ft 57 ft Riley Bird 1998-12 foot rear yard, 4.5 foot west side yard, 10 foot east side yard 98-12 January 12 1999: Single family home: 12,515 sq ft lot area variance, 12.5 foot lot width variance, 51 foot lot width variance (lake access), 10 foot front yard setback variance, 3 foot side yard setback variance, 4 foot shoreland setback variance June 28, 1999: Single family home: 13 foot front yard setback variance,7 foot shoreland setback variance 9231 Lake 1989-13 6 foot side yard setback variance 9,819 SCl ft 27.7 ft Riley Blvd 9203 Lake 1991-16 2.5 foot side yard setback variance 25,124 SCl ft 80 ft Riley Blvd 9221 Lake 1992-2 Garage setbacks: 14 foot front yard 6,465 sq ft 28 ft Riley Blvd setback variance, 6.5 foot side yard *Applicant setback, 7% hard mu-face coverage 9243 Lake 1993-8 Addition setbacks: 9 foot shoreland 13,659 sq ft 66 ft Riley Blvd variance, 7.9 foot front yard variance 9225 Lake 1996-9, Setbacks: 3 foot east side yard 8,121 sq ft 42 ft Riley Blvd variance, 5 foot west side yard variance, 33 foot shoreland variance, 25% hard mu-face coverage variance; 9223 Lake 1997-11 97-11-setbacks: 7 foot rear yard 7,262 sq ft 68 ft Riley Blvd variance, only 23% lmrd msrfaee coverlt~e 361 1997-3 Deck setbacks: 1.6 foot front yard 13,553 sq ft N/A Deerfoot variance Trail 9217 Lake 1998-6 Addition setbaelm: 7 foot front yard 14,379 sq ft 115 ft Riley Blvd variance 9249 Lake 1999-14 18 foot shoreland setback variance 42,584 sq ft 57 ft Riley Blvd Surer Variance 02003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 7 DISCUSSION Although there is an existing home on the site, the applicant is proposing to enhance the and reduce the nonconforming shoreland setback from 28 feet to :$-5 S7 feet. ~r~ ~.~ ~.1,~.- 1:.~ ..... The applieant is proposing to maintain the existing hard coyer~e in the proposed Feconstrucflon plan. (See m~yt~hed h~ su~:~ cov~ The existing home has an 8 foot setback from the side property lines, and the applicant is proposing to decre~ the setback to 4:4 3.4 feet on the west side, including roof eaves from the garage for the first 11.5 feet of the home and then decrease the setback to 5 feet, inciuding roof eaves for the remaining structure..a.;.,,: .... :.,__, _,:,u ,u ...... .~ ~,~,~,~ ;~- *~' ........ ~ The applicant is also proposing to decrease the east side yard setlm~ from its current 3.3 foot setback to 6 5 feet including the roof eaves. ~ 5z z~: ~idz. The house would be a one and one half story walkout dwelling with the height not exceeding 35 feet from the average grade to the midpoint of the roofline. Thin is in Reasonable Use The buildable area (950 sq. ft.) is constrained by the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The required setbacks limit the buildable area, co~g the ability to reconsmmt a reasonable house and leave the existing garage without a variance. The property owner does not have the oppommity to make a reasonable use, while improving the shoreland setback of the site, without variances. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable ~ 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 main~e~" Due to the nonconforming lot size of the property and maximum hard surface coverage requirement by leaving the existing driveway and garage which occupy 15% of the hard cover the applicant would only be able to recons~ 643.25 square feet of hard cover. The minimum dwelling size for a standard RSF two story dwelling is 600 square feet on one level. However the existing home occupies 837.4 square feet. Literal enforcem~t of the code would cause the applicant to decrease his existing livable area, if they demolish the existing house. However, the applicant is proposing to reduce the existing shoreland setback, as well as reduce the garage eaves encroachment from a 2.4 setback to 3.4 into the side yard setbacks. According to city code eaves are allowed to encroach 2 feet 6 inches into the required setback, however, if a variance is granted for a setback, eaves are not allowed to encroach into the approved setback. Surer Variance #2003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 8 The applicant is also willing to work with staff to form a landscape and lakescape plan for the property. The applicant has researr, hed and met with landscape design teams regarding this issue. See attached letter from the applicant. The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Unch,¢ 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 m~cl_e 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-e~g standaxds in thi~ neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing stan~ without depmodng downward fxom them meet this criterion F/nd/rig: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does cre~ a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property for a recons~ single-family home on the lot cannot be developed without a variance, due to the site consmfints of 35 foot lot width and 6,465 · b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classific~on. Find~g: The conditions upon which this variance is baaed are applicable to all ~es in the RSF zoning district. However, the subdivi~on in the Shore Acres development area was done in 1951 prior to the adoption of the cuffent standards and many properties, including this one, do not comply with the 90 foot by 125 foot dimensions or the 20,000 square foot lot area requirements. 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 ability to develop the site will increase the value of the ~. However, the use of the parcel for a single-family home is reason~le. The owner's intent is to create a more functional and aesthetically pleasing home site. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a seff-creat~ hardship. Finding: The lot was platted in 1951 prior to the ordinance, ~ the hardship is not serf- created. The existing home was built nonconf~ as well as the homes on either side of the site which are currently developed with single-family homes. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to other land or hnprovements in the neighbofla~ in which the parcel is located. Suter Variance g2003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 9 Finding: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighbonhood in which the parcel is locatecC The ~ house ~ the shoreland setback nonconformity while maintaining the existing side yard setbacks. Only two properties within 500 feet of the site are 20,000 square feet in lot area. All properties are developed with single-family homes. The proposed grading will i ,reprove drainage in the area. The applicant is also planning to recycle and donate as much of the existing home's materials as po~Ible. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and sir to adjacent property or substantially increase the con.on of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or i~ property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not im,r~fir an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent ~ or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. The ~ will be increasing the lake view of adjacent ~. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: '~'he Planning Commission approves Variance g2003-7 for a 13.535 square foot variance from the 20,000 square foot minimum lots size; 55 foot variance from the minimum 90 ft lot width requirement; a 38 foot variance from the 90 foot lake shore width; a ~* ....... ~68 foot variance from the 10 foot west side yard setback, for the first 11.5 feet of the house only then reducing the setback to S feet for the eaves; a 4- 5 foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an ~ 18 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the recons~on of a single family home on an existing 6,465 square foot lot based upon the findings in the staff report and the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become null and void. . The submitted survey shall be signed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or landscape architect and shall include: a north arrow; show 12-inch or geater trees on the site and along the neighboring ~ lines; and the existing shed to the east. . No grading within 37.5 feet of the Ordinary High Water elevation. Type III silt fence must be provided during demolition and during consuuction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. Surer Variance ~2003-7 April 15, 2003 Page 10 4. As part of the building permit submittal, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval The applicant shall use all reasonable means to protect and save the trees along the western property line. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. A landscape plan must be prepared for city review. 6. Develop and install a landscape and lakescape plan." ATTACHMENTS . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Application and Letter ReatucxA Copy of Lot Survey Proposed Site Plan Building Envelope Hard Surface Coverage Calculation Breakdown Hard Surface Coverage Breakd~wa Drawing Building Height Elevation Letter From Applicant dated April 27, 2003 Letter From Don and Kaflu~ Sitter to Planning Commission dated April 14, 2003 Section 20-56 through 20-73, Variances and nonconforming lots Section 20-611 through 20-616, RSF District Requim~ts Public hearing notice and ~ owners list 03/05/03 11:46 9522271110 CITY OF CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1901) RECEIVED,_ CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW' APPUCATION ow.r=a: DD.ESS: TELEPHONE: _ __ ~ Comp~ Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Inlerfm Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation o! ROW/Easements Variance Wetland AlteraIion Permit __ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Pla~ Revtew __ Notflcation Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CU P/SPR/VAC/VA~AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the Bullding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~1'wenty-six full size fol .ded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8V," X 11" reduced copy of : ..... each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be re. qulmd for other applications through the development contract NOTE- When mUttiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each apprmation. 03/05/03 11:46 FA~ 9522271110 · CITY OF ~SSEN ~004 PROJEC'T NAME ~ D~GRIPTIC~ WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQ~ LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This applica/ion must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determlnallon of completeness of the appr,:ation shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written rmtice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the app~ant within ten business days of appr~mtlon. 'Th~ is to cerlify that I am maldng application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This appllca.tion 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 ~ a copy of proof of ovmership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of. Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make 1his appr~/Jon and the fee miner has also signed this appllcat~. I will keep myself Informed of the deacllines for sUbmlsslon of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility stiles, etc. with an estimate prior Io any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted am true and correct to the best of my knmvledge. . 'The city tmmby r~ifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to pubr~: hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city ts ~ the applicant that the city requires an automa~ 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed wtthIn 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ~ignature of App/icant Dale Appi'~ Rece'wed on Fee Paid Receipt No. 'The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. City of Chanhassen Variance Request Project and Prooertv: Sue and Tom Surer 9221 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 859-8446 1. Completed Application Form: Attached 2. Application Fee: Attached 3. Evidence of Ownership or an interest in property:. Attached 4. Location Map: Attached List of property owners and addresses within 500 feet of Property boundary. The list my be obtained from the City of Chanhassen or Carver County. Attached 6. Plot plan showing property lines, existing improvemeat~ With setbacks, lot coverage, building height, etch. Attached 7. Written description ofvgrlanC~ r~uest: We are looking to have the garage and house connected, forming a single building dwelling while adding additional living space. As part of the overall goal to have the house and garage be a single smictme, we are requesting variance approvals. Lake S~tback In an effort to try and conform to the 75' lake setback, and as part of goal to connect the house ~ with the garage,, we would remove the cmrenI house and rebuild fmt~ from the lake. It is o. uremly 28' from the lake and our proposed design would double the curmnI distance between the lake and the house. As the illustrations will show, some of the new stru~ is within the 75' desired set back, however, over 75% of tho proposed 5trucluro has been moved within the 75' lake setbac~ line. The~e changes will greatly improve the lake si~ for our immediate Sue and Tom Surer ~ Side Lot Setback As the stmcUn~ is moved back towards the garage, it moves imo the thinnest dimension of our challenged lot. In respect to the side lot to the west, the cmrreut garage is set 4'4' from the lot line. We are requesting to have the ability to use the previously approved side lot setback of 4'4" for the new sffucturo. We will also need a similar ~t b~k on the eagtside for a side deck. We seek a 6' set back for the east side lower level below the Hard Coverage Percentage The existing house, garage, patio and walkway hard coverage percentage is approximately 34%. The proposed changes would increase the hard coverage to 44%. The primary increases are related to the increase in house size and an outdoor living area. Most of the increased hard cover will occur beyond the 75' setbnck providin8 additional green area near the lake. 8. Written_ in~ificstion of how request comulies with the findings for trantint a vstri~ance fuursn_ant to Section 20-~8) a~ follows: Our property exists in a lakeshore neighborhood where original platting created narrow, challenged lots and are refaved to as "non conforming lot of record". The width of our lot at the street is 35'. The lot width at the lakeshore is 50 feet and consida-ing the current ~k parameter of 75' from the lake, our total lot width dimension narrows to 42'at the lakeside. ~rdingly, lite~ enforceme~ of curreat codes would allow building widths to be 15' st the front (street side) 18'at the start ' of the addition and 22'at the lakeside. These setback prerequisites if strictly enforced, would in our perspective, create an undue hard~p due to the shape and size of our lot. This hardship was acXnowledged in 1994 when a side yard setback variance was granted to construct a garage on the street side of our property allowing a 4.4 feet side yard setback. Since our lot was p~ lakeshore setback revisions were revised to 75'. This created a non-conforming situation in regards to our attrent home that is currently 28' from the lake. Lkeml enforcement ofcmTettt codes would not allow our amem home and if moved back and limited to the 75" setback requirement, create a hardship to produce a reasotmbly sized, practical home design. The minimal lot width also forces the home to be Sue and Tom Sutm' Project elonsm~ front to baok versus other typi~l homes which can be positioned parallel to the street and lake that allows more setback. Curreufly the prope~ies hardcover totals 34% and is nonconforming. Our proposal includes an increase in hardcover. While it is also non- c~n~rming, we believe that allowing this increase permits a reasonable use of the lake and propert~ and we have effectively reduced the hardcover near tho lake by 280 sq. fL Lite~tl enfo~ of the 25% limit in our opinion, crest~ a hardship for this particular property as the lot is limited in total area (6465 SCl.ft.). B. We feel that our petition for a ~ce is unique to our lot especially considering it is a "non-conforming lot of record". Co The purpose of our variance request is not based on income potential. We have put our existing primary residence up for sale and will be making this house our primary residence. We are looking to have the garage and house connected, forming a single building dwellin~ while adding additional living space. As part of the overall goal to have the house and garage be a single suucmre. De Our difficulty or hardship is not self-created. We believe the original platting along with the lot configuration and topography create the hardship. Eo Granting our variance will not in our opinion be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvem~ in the neighborhood. On the contrary, we feel that remo~ the home, which exists 28' from the lakeshore~ and moving i~ back 28 feet creates a much better neighborhood environm~ lind lino of sight whilo ~ to blend Our proposal will not impair an adequate supply of fight and air to adjacent properties or sub~y increase neighborhood consesfion of public streets. Additionally, it will not increase the ~ of fire or endanger public's safety or subs'amtially diminish prope~, values. In our opinion granting the variance will enhance and improve many of the issues addressed in this sectio~ Our total building height is code compliaut and consideri~ adjacent properties, does not negati~ly affect their space and will improve the ' aesthetic quality of this lakeshore nei~. Congestion will not change and danger of fire will actually diminish due to new consuuction Sue and Tom Sum' Project Granfin8 of'our variance, in our op/nion, has a c2mnco of improv/n~ not diminish, neighbor/nE property values, considerin~ wh~ is ouzremly present on the property. Arehitcel~; SALA Architects Dale Mulfinger, FAIA and Beth Cmmig 440 2~ Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 380-4817 Buiider/R~modeler: Lake Country Builders Peter Jacobson 339 2~a Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 474-7121 www. lakecountrybuildors.com Arcl. llecl8 I'BC. f ~MN 43 ~ SImM SE, ~ 410, 55414 Ted (612) :379 ~ Fu 1612).179 0(X)1 440 2nd Skml, 55331 Td (95~ 3BO 4~17 Rm (9S2) 3M) 48'18 Td K,51) :351 0961 RIx 1651) 351 7327 ml, al P . · :)30 I. imbor Lm'm N. F)~/mouffl, MN 66447 Phone (-/~) 660-O608 Fmc (7'63) BGg-O47g Lot Carver Cou. aty, i(Innesota. STREET ADDRESS-9221 Riley Boulevord LOT AREA-6,465 SCi. FT./O. 14 AC. Ordinary High Water Elevation -- 865.3.per DNR and City of Chanhassm Existine Site Scale I · . , ~,rc&ltect~ lac. 43 Main Sm~ SE, Sulm 410, 5~14 44O 2ad ~ 55~31 Td (9~) 380 4817 Fax 4952) 380 4818 ~d ~1) 351 096! fax ff~51) 351 7327 St~n~at ~922! Rgey Boulword tOT ,,~-6,465 so. r'r../o.;4 n:. ! ?ROPOSED.CONDITIONS . 8C.8L~ 1-.20 STRE~ ADDRESS-9221 Riley Boulevord LOT'AREA-6,465 SO. FT./O. 14 AC. Existing Site-- t:20 J .~p1~m ~ I.ake'S~nFebruary26,200~'='884.7 ' "- "' - Ordinary High Water E~n = 865.3 per DNRand City of Chanhass~ · '1 April 27th, 2003 Ms. Angle Auseth 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Auseth, Subject: Variance #2003-7, 9221 Lake Riley Blvd As part of our overall remodeling project, we have a desire to develop a landscaping solution that is both environmentally and aesthetically pleasing. To this end, we are working with a landscape architect to develop a design that maximi?~s thc use of tree's, shrubs, native grasses and other plant mat~al~ to promote a healthy environment. The DNR has published a lakeseaping guide for wildlife and water quality that suggests many of the ideas that we are working with our landscape architect to incorporate. Among these suggestions is reducing runoffby utilizing native plant materials and encouraging wildlife habitats through promotion of "safe" havens again using appropriate plant materials. As part of this solution we are sharing our ideas and proaetively soliciting input from our neighbors to the east and west. Our hope is they may also incorporate some of these ideas into their landscape plans to further promote a lake friendly Even though our lot is small, we can still incorporate environmentally appropriate solutions into our landscape plan and intend to do so. Sincerely, Sue Suter Tom Surer 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 April 14, 2003 Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen City Hall 7700 Market Blvd., Chanhassen, MN Dear Planning Commission Members: We are writing regarding case # 2003-7 VAR, applicant Thomas Suter. We am not able to attend the public hearing about the variance request at 9221 Lake Riley Blvd and wish to submit a comment regarding the proposal. We have lived on Lake Riley Blvd for 23 years and many requests for variances. have occurred. Our main concern in responding to the past projects has been for the health of the lake and surrounding environment. This is one of the few requests we have seen where the owner actually wants to retreat from the sho.reline, even though it is still not Within lake setback. The side setbacks, even though granted for the existing garage years ago, still present a problem in getting tim equipment around to the lake side of the house, should the need arise. The increase in hard surface coverage will Certainly affect the drainage and could also be detrimental to saving the property line trees. However, we believe the Suter's proposal is reasonable for the lot and we concur with City Staff's recommendation as listed in the staff report. We also strongly agree with the need for silt fences throughout the entire project and that a drainage and erosion control plan should be approved and foll~. Thank you. Sincerely, Don and Kathryn Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 zooms0 2044. Planning comm~on ~'~1o~ 8hah l~port its finrlln~ol~ nnr] I'~omm~nrlAtialls on the propo8~ Am'~ndmpq~ tO t]~i~ cha~, inelualng the _zon;nE map to tho council. If no report 0f recomm~dation is transmitted by the plnnnin~ commim~__'on within 8i~ (60) days followlnE referral of the nmnnamont to tho cDmmis~i0n~ tho coun(~ m~y .take action on the ~m~nrlment without awai~ such rec/ml- mondation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. HI, § 3(3-3-4), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-45. Council action. Followln.q p]nnning ~ommlssioIl conslder~lion of an nmonrlmeat to this ehn~ includin~ the zonin~ map, or upon the expiration of lit~ roviot~ ~ the colin(Iii tony adopt tho ~monr]ment or ~ part thereof in such farm as it deems advisablo~ reject the amendment, or refer it to the p]nnnln~ commlgsiori for furth~r'eon~id_~ation. · (Ord. No. 80, Art, HI, § 3(3-5-5), 12-15-136) .. Secs. 20-46~2~55. Reserved- DIVISION 3. VARIANCES Sec. 20-56. Generally. A variance from thiA chapter may be r~quested only by-the owner of the property or the owner's approved representative to which the variance would apply. A' vari-nce may not be granted which would a~low the use of property in a manner not permittod within, tho. applicable zonln~ district. A variance may, however, be granted for the .tmn~ uso of a tmo-fnmfly dWe11ing aa a two-fnmfly dw~llinE. In gran_ffn~ any variance, conditions may bo ~ to ensure sub~_~ntlnl compllance with thin' nhnpter and to pnfmct adjacent property. (Ord. No. 80, Art. HI, § 1(3-1-1(1)), 12-15436; Ord. No. 131, § 4, 7-9-90) See. 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon varinnco; termtnntion for nonus~ The violation of any written-condition shnII constitute a violation of thiA .chapter. A Varlnn .e~_, except a variance approved in conjunction with plat~n~, $hnll become void within oho (1) year following issuance -nless substa~ action has been taken by the pefitionm' in l'~llsmne thereon. (Ord. No. 80, Art. HI, § 1(3-1-3(1)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 196, § 1, U.-22-S3) SuPI~ No. 14 1161 Sec. 20.58. General conditions for granting. · A variance may be ~ranted by the board of a/~ana~ts and appeals or city council ~ . if all of the following criteria are metz. : (1) That the literal enforcement of this chspter would cause undue hardshi. 'p: 'Undue hardship" means the property _~_ nnot be put to reasonable use because of its aize, physical surroundings, ~h_~pe or topography. ReasonAble use includes a use made by a mejority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferat/an of variances, but 'to reco_onl,e that in developed neighborhoods pre~x/sti~ standards-exist. Variances that blend with tl2se preexisting standards without depa~ down~ flum them meet this criteri~ (2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not appl/eab~ generally, to other property wiflfin the same z,-i%~ clssdflmtion. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a des/re to increase'the value'or income potential of the parcel of land. (4) That the alleged diffi~W or .hardship is. not a self-created hardship. (5) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborh~ in which the parcel of land is located. (6) That the proposed variation wfll 'not impair au.adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the .public streets, or increases the.danger of fire, or e-_sAn_=er the public safety or sul~-~ly diminish . or impair property values wi_~hl,~ the n_~ohh0rh~.. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-15~86; Ord. Bio. 131, § 3, 7-9-90)- Sec. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-f_-mily dwelling as two-family dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-fAmily dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only be allowed under the following drcumstsne~: (1) There is a demonstrated ne/al'based upon disability, age or flnAneiA! hardship. · · (2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a. single-fAmily dwelling, inel~ the maintenance of one (1) driveway and one (1) main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not ~tablish~d (e.iI. gas, water, sewer, (4) The variance will not be injurioug to or adverse.~ affect the health, safety or welfare. of the residents of the city or the neighborhcod where the property is situated ami will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of thi~ chapter. · (Or& 'Bio. 80, Art. HI, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-154~6) . . ~pl~ N~4 1i63 § 20-60 Variances may be deemed .by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and such denial shall constitute a .finding and determlno_tion tl~t the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80, Art; HI, § 1(3-1-4(6)), 12-15-86) 8ece. 20-61--20-70. Reserved. DIVISION-4. NONCONFORMING USES* Sec. 20-71. The purpose of this division is:. (1) To. recognize the existe~____ee of uses, lots, and stru~ which were lawful when (2) To prevent the.~t, .~l~-~i~n, intzm~flo,,_~_~n, or extension .~ff'any noncon- formi-g use, building, or.structure; (3) .To encoar~e .the ~llmlvm~nn of n .onconform;pg uses, lots, and stru~ or reduce their impa~ on ac~ .acent propertie~ (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2,10.92) Se~ 20.72. Nonconforming ~ end ~euotnrea cation of any nonconfor~i,~ use or nonconformi,,~ Sh'ucture except to lessen .or el~,-~-~te the (5) Notwithstaudi~g any other provisions of this e],-.,,ter, any de~?,h_~l aingl~f~,-~y dw~_'llln~ th~ is on a nonconf, m'mlnE lot or that is a.nonconformtng use or structure may be se~ of a dwelling is ,~_~__~o,,~-~i,~5 no addi.'tions m~y be added to the nonconforml,g (c) No nonconfor~i~ u~e-;h.u be .~..ff nor,~l ~.of the use has been discontinued for a period oftwel~ (12) or mor~ ,--n_~h,- Time ahall be on the dsy following tbe last dsyin which the use was in normal ~ and ahall run continuously ~. Following. ~ expiration of twelve (12) month~, only land nses WMch ~s note-Section'2 of Ord. No. 165, adopted. Feb. 10, 1992- =m_ _,,~l__ Div. 4 in its entire~ to read as set out in §§ 20-71-20-73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 conhfined §§ 20.71-20-78, which pertained to =im~,,,. ~ m,~ter and derived fl~m Ord. NO. 80, Art. HI, § 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. N~. 163, § 1, adopt~ Feb. 24, 1992. 8Ul~ No. 4 1164 (cO Full us~ of a nonc0nfor~i-_=.land Us~ shall not be resumed ff the amount of land .or floor area dsdicated to thz us~ is ~-or ff the intensity of the Us~ is in any manner ~mlnlahed for a poriod.'of twalve {12) or mom mort .tbs. Time _~hnll be cal~ula~ as .beginning on the d~ following the last davy in which the nonconforming i~md use .was in. flfll operation and shall nm continuoudy thereafter;-.Follow/,_= the .e~p. iration' of twelve (12) months, the nonconforming land ns~ may b~ used on!y in the manner or to the extant used during the preceding twelve (12) months. For the ~ of this section, intansity of u~ shall be me~. sured by hours of operation, tra/r~ noise, exterior storage, signs, odors, n,--bet of employees, and other facto~ deemed ralsvant by the c/ry. (e) M. ain~ and repair ofnonconformi~_= sta-actur~ is perm/t/ed. Removal or destru~ fion of a nonconformln_o strurtm~ to th~ ~xf~nt of more than ~ (50) percont of its estimated value, excluding ]and value and as detsrmt~ed by the ~ity, shall termi-Ate the right to con- tinue the nonconfor~i~.g structure. CO Notwith~_~ml~_= the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this se~on, ff approved by the c/ty council a non.conforming 1A, d USe may be ehAnge~, to another noncon- formln_= land USe Of lz~ ~ if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the burde~of proof regarding the ro_l_=~ve intensities of ~ (g) If a nonconformt-_= land uss is superseded or mp~ by a permitted ns~, the non- COnfOZ'mlnE' ~/;tlB of tho ~i_~ and any rights which arise under the provisions of this I~/~on shRl~ te~mlnAte. (OrcL No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 20-78. Nonconformh,_~ lots d rmm~ (a) No vari_~-ce shall be requir~.' to reeongru~ a detached singl~f-mily dwelling located on a'nonconformin~ lot of record or which is a nonconforming use ff it is de~m~yed by natural disaster so long as the replacement dw~_11in_~ has a footprint which is no larger th~n that of the destroyed structure and is subs_~_ n~11y the _p-qme size in building height and floor area as the destroyed structure. Re~c~ _nhn11 comm_~-rj_r_~e within two (2) year8 of the date of the destruction of the orion-1 building and reasc~-~le progren shall be made in completing the project. A building permit shall be obtained prior to coneh-uction of the new dwelling and the fo) No vms-rice shall be required, to construct a detached _~n~family dwelling on a nonconforming lot provided that it fl~nts on a public street or approv~ private street and provided that the width and area ,-_~_-uren3ents are a~ lest seventy, five (75) percent of the (c) Ezcept as otherwbe ~ provided for de~_ e-~_~l sh~l~famt~ dwenin~ ~here shall be no expansion, intensiflad~ r~ or structural d,-n_~es of a structure on a nonconforming lot. (cO If two (2) or mor~ c~fl&~mu~ lots ar~ tn ~/mgl~ owns~hlp and'ff ~11 or lmrt of the lots do not meet the ~ and area r~lutr~ments of this chapter for lots'in the dtstri~ the- ~l~x4 1165 § 2O-75 DIVISION 5. BUll.fliNG PERMTI~, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, ETC. Sec. 20~1. lhfllding permits. (a) No person shall erst, constru~ alter, znlar~, repair, move or remove, any building' (b) An application for a building permit' shall be made to the city on a form furnished by the city. All building permit applications shall be accomp.anied by a site plan drawn to scale showing the dimon~ions of the' lot to be built upon and the size and location of any existh~ structures and the building to be ~ off. feet pm*.ki-~ and loading facilities and such . other information as may be deemed neceosary by the city to-deterr-i-~ compliance with this chapter and other land use ordinances. No building permit shall be issued for aL~ivity in .conflict with the provisions of ~hi~ chapter. The city shall imme a building permi~ only after dete~;-i~g that the' application and plans comply with the provi~i0n~ of this chaptor, the (c) If th~ work described in any building permit is not .begun withi,, ,~inety (90) days or substantially completed within one (1) year followln_~ the date af the issuance thereof, said permit may become void at-the discretion of the zoning admlnl/d;rator upon submission documented evidence. Written notice thereof shall be transmi~ by the ~i~ to permit holder, stating that activity authorized by the expired permit shall cease unless and until a new building permit has. been obtained. (Ord. No. 80, Art. HI, § 4(IL14), 12~16-86) Cross reference--Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq. Sec. g0.92. Certificates of occupancy. (a) In accmdance with the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city, a (1) Any nonagri~t~al building, except an a_~ building., herea/tor erected or (2) The u~e of any existing n~ building, except an accessory hfll~, is . Co)' Application for a certificate of occupancy shall be made to the city as part of the 'application for a building permit A certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the city.. SupiNe4 1166 ZONING § ~.0-613 (1) Corn,- _~cial ~ and stables. (OrcL No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note~InRsmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisia~ added by § 3 of Ord. No. · 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-696. Seca 20-597--20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE xn. "P, SF" SlNGT.~..FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the '"RSF" District is to provide far ~n~e-~Rmfly resident/R1 subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80, AfL V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. .'I~e follow/ng uses are permitted in an '"RSF" Dis/ri~. (1) Single-fRmily dwellings. (2) Public and private open space.. (3) Stat~-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home servin~ six (6) or fewer persons. (5) ut~ity sorv/~. · (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas 'as regulated by article NX~ of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, ArC V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-1§~6; Ord. No.' 259, § 11, ~1-1~-96) See. 20-813. Permitted accessory (1) Garage. (2) Storage b~flaing. (3) S~dmmin~ pool. (4) rllalnniR courl;. (5) s~. (6) Home ~~~. (7) O~(1) d~ Supp. No. 14 1211 5.20-613' ~ENCITYCODE (8) Private kennel. (Or& No. 80, Ar~ V, § 5(5.5.a), m-15-86) Seo. 20~14, Conditional uses. The followlnL, are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach Iota. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of thiR o. hApt~. (Oft 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--Condifionnl uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec~ 20.615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following mlnlmnm req~~Dts _sh~ll b~ observed in an "RSF~ Dis~ subject to add.i.'tional ~ents; exceptions and'mbdifi'csiio~ set forth, in this c. hapt~ and chapter !8: (1) (2) The mlnimnnl lot area. is ~ thousand (15,000) sq~mve feet. For'neck or .flag lots, the lot area requirements sh~11 be mot m°r, er the area cont~i~acl wifAin the m]].eh?.k." 'l'ms been excluded from conalderation. The m|n|m,m lot frontage is nlnAty (90) feet, e~:ept that Iota f~on~ on a cul~le-sac ' "bubble" or along the outside curve of curwql-ear street Seclfions sh~ll be nl-ety (90) feet in width at the btti]dln~ setbac~ line. The location of this lot is conceptually Lot8 Where Frontage Ii Measured At 8~baok Line- L 'i 8upp. No. 14 1212 .- (8) zOmNG § 20-615 private streets shall be one' hundred (100) feet aB meaBLm~ at the front b.n~lln~ F.':r-O~ ' L · 1, L I iii- .a ~ I I I. I ! I 100#Lot 'Width t ! '1.-I I t .. -'-J' I' ['- --._.L. (4) The maxim~m lot coverage for an stru~ and paved surfaces is twenty-fi~e (25) p .ercent~ (5) The 8etbao. lr~ are as follows: - - a. For f~ont yards, m!rty (30) feet~ b. For rear yards, thirty (30) fee~ c. For side yards, ten (10) feet~ (6) The setbacks for lot~ 'served'-by private streets and/or neck lots-are aB follows: a. For front yard, t.h;rty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public ri.~ht-of-way that provides access to the psrcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite fram the front lot line with the' _r~n~inln~ 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-h~-fix~ mlnlm~m width.. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet~ c. For side yards, ten (10) foe~ (7) The maximum hei~ht is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) st0ri~ (40) feet~ 8upp. No. 14 1213 § 20-615 OHA~OITYCODE b. Far ~ stru~~ twenty (20) feet. -. · (Ord. No. SO, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Or& No. ~, ~ ~, ~1~; ~ No. ~7, ~ 3, ~~; ~. No. 1~, [ 2, ~91; ~. No. ~, [ 1~ 7-~; ~ No. '~, ~ ~, ~Fs ~~on 2 ~ ~. No. 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2~1~6~. ~ ~ a~~ s~~; ~ p~~ w~ ~n~ ~ ~ 2~l~b., ~ ~ m~t d ~ s~m by ~. No. ~7. ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ No: 1~, ~ 2, ~ ~~ ~ ~din~ ~ 2~l~b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF' Dis~ch (1) Private stables subject to provisio~ Of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a ,,~h~i,,,,,~ lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617--20-630. Reserved. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Ord. ARTICLE NIH. 'tH,.4" ~mxm~:m) LOW D~~ ~~ DI~~ -. Se~ 2~1. ~t ~e ~t of ~ ~" ~~ ~ ~ ~e f~-~,~f, mily ~d a~~ ~d~ d~opm~t at a m-~mnm n~ den~ ~ f~ (4) dw,11ing ~m(~ ~ ~. (0~. No. 80, ~ ~ ~ ~-1), 151~6) . .'. S~ ~2. P~~ uses. .- ~e foH~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~" ~~ S~gl~f~mily dwelling. ~f~mily dwelBn~. ~bHc ~d ~va~ ~ ~d o~ s~. G~up home ~n~'~ (6) or ~ ~~.. Sm~H~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~~ (12) ~ f~ ~~ u~ ~. No. 80, ~ ~ ~ ~2), ~1~; ~ No. ~9, ~ 13, 11-~) ~ ~3. P~t~ ~s~ ~ ~e foRthS ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~~ (1) O~ Supp. No. 14 1214 PROPOSAL: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. Variances for the Demolition.and Reconstruction of a Single Family Residence APPLICANT: Thomas Suter LOCATION: 9221 .Lake Riley Blvd. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal In your area. The applicant, Thomas Suter, requesting a lakeshom, side yard, lot area, lot width and hard surface coverage variances for the demolition and reconstruction of a single family home on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, located at 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 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 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 dosed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: ff 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 Angela at 227-1132. If you choose to submit wrttten 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 Apitl 3, 2003. Smooth Feed SheetsTM I.AKEVIEW ~.l-~ ~ 12400 WttlTEWATER DR ~140 MINNE'rONKA MN 55343 PRINCE R NI~$ON 7801 AUDUBON RD ~ ~~'/.~;3 Use template f°r 5160~ 55317 Wu J.IAM L & LINDA C JANSEN 240 EASTWOOD cr CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOAN M LUDWIG & E'I'I-II~. M BUDISLIK 9005 lAKE RII.HY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSON 9283 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WIllIAM S HENAK & KRIS'IIN Al J.RRS 280 EASTWOOD CT CI-IANHASSEN MN 55317 LAURA MARIE COOPER 9015 LAKE Rn.f~' BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHR~VERSON ~I~~~MN 55317 Wu J JAM S tIENAK & _ KRISTIN AH 55317 NORMAN C IR & KIMBERLY GRANT 9021 LAK'F. RIf.I:~Y BLVD CHANi-IASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN A & RENEE A ~JJ~ 9291 KIOWA TRL (2HANttA..~SI~q MN 55317 BRIAN E & TRACY S BI~I J OWS 9470 FOXFORD RD CHANI-IABSEN MN 55317 TODD W & In J. PORTER 9261 KIOWA TRL CI-IANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN MARIE BABCOCK 9351 KIOWA TRL CHANHASb3~ MN 55317 PL:rrE P & JOYCE L Pgl'~lit, 9490 FOXFORD RD CHANHAS,.qI~ MN 55317 DONALD W & KATHRYN N srrrER 9249 LAKE Ro-.x~r BLVD CHANHAS~ MN 55317 P~i'BKC&~RGF~ANNI.-J.m 9355KIOWATRL CI-IANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS M Mn J-~ 9510 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN 55317 BARRY A & HARRIET F BERSHOW 9271 KIOWA TRL CI-IANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWIN MICHA~. DOlvok'~ 9361 KIOWA TRL ~ MN 55317 RICHARD J CHADWICK 9530 FOXFORD RD CI:IANH3aSSt~ MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK IR & WENDY L F. Cd3ERS 9251KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W & BEVERLY J B~ J- 9371 KIOWA TRL ~ MN 55317 LAKERU.R'YWOODSHOMEOWNERS C/OPAULMARTIN 9610FOXFORDRD CHANHASSI~ MN 55317 I~.fNG~.HU'I'Z DEVELOPMENT CO 350 HWY 212 E PO BOX 89 CHASKA MN 55318 MARK A & PAMI~ K MOKSNF~ 9381 KIOWA TRL CHANHAS..~gN MN 55317 DONALDHHI&DIANEMKENNEDY 108PIONP:I~TRL CI-IANHASSEN MN 55317 PAM~.A A O'1~_ .n J. 9550 FOXFORD RD CHANI-tASS~ MN 55317 JOYCE E KING 9391 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WTIJ.IAM T & CAROL ANN GRAY 50 PIONR~R TRL CHANHASSI~q MN 55317 /AV~i¥® Laser 52.60® Smooth Feed SheetsTM ]:~I.I'K)N L BI~.KI.AND & WENDY NELSON BERKLAND 10 PIO~ TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~ I-mJ.s LLC 12400 wttrrEWATER DR 8140 MINNETONKA MN 55343 RAYMOND M & JUDITH N LEWIS 9071 LAK'~- Rn.EY BLVD CHANHA,.~.gI~ MN 55317 ROBERT W & T.T.~A K BORN 9163 SUNNYVAIR DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5160® C/O BRUCE 7700 PO BOX 147 MN 55317 RONAI.D S & ~ K BAClCI~ 9101 LAK'F- R~I.RY BLVD CHANHA~SEN MN 55317 JODY L ROGERS 106 LAKEV1EW RD E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES L TONJES C/O GI~fI~iAL/VmJ.S INC-B BARNES PO BOX 1113 MINNIFaMX~LIS MN 5544O STEVENF&KATHI.I:U:~MBImKE 9591MEADOWLARKLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 J P JR & JUDITH M HUNt-U-MANN 9117 LAKE I~n.RY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611MEADO~ I~ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN B JR & MARLYN G GOIR2Trr' 9119 LAKE I~n.RY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ' GAYLE M & RICHARD P VOGEL TRUSTEES OF TRUST 105 PION/U~ TRL CHANHASS~ MN 55317 MICHA~:u. T & TERESA A MONK 9671 MF. AIX)WLAR.K LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD D & FRn:U3A A OLIN TRUSTEES OF TRUST 9125 LAK'R I~H.HY BLVD CHA_NHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID A & SUSAN M DUHAIME 9131 LAK'~ I~U.HY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHA~:U. J REILLY & T.T~A A l~Rn J.Y 9701 MF, ADO~ LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Dm.RERT R & NANCY R SMITH 9051 LAKE RII.HY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J & SUE A SUTER 11397 WELTERS WAY EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 laser 5160®