8. Appeal Variance, Andrew and Catherine Hiscox, 7500 Erie Drive
CITY 0 F
CHANHASSEH
BOA DATE: 4/14/97
CC DATE: 4/28/97
CASE #: 97-1 V AR
By: Kirchoff:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
A 13.2 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff setback for the construction of a
single family home and deck.
LOCATION:
Erie Drive; Lot 2, Block 1, Hiscox Addition
APPLICANT:
Andrew and Catherine Hiscox
7500 Erie Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
937-2500
.,
ACREAGE:
38,400 square feet (.88 acres)
DENSITY:
N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
A~H) LAND USE:
N- RD, Lotus Lake
S - PUD-R, Residential Planned Unit Development;
RSF, Single Family Residential
E - PUD-R, Residential Planned Unit Development
W- RSF, Single-Family Residential
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site. Will be extended from the cul-de-sac
to the residence upon the issuance of a building permit.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
The northerly portion of the lot contains extreme topography.
The site is a riparian lot on Lotus Lake and contains mature
trees.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Low Density Residential
~
~~ ~otus ~~:
.?;~ '" ~R1rP:j'.
. .~ \---\~.- . ~ -....:
~ c:. .,~. ......... .......,..... ~ ,
;0\.,:<0- I I 1 ~ ~ -\~~
f.\ ITlT' 1 .,. ; ~
~~~v--"- ~ . T,..~'
0-.ti :/l~lx'..~y ~ ~,""-'lI
\ \:lo ~"". -<~,r' ~ L " - ..
~~j'>'~ '~10l1. ,Lake ~: ~{
....~C ;r 1 i IJI1l"\f c;.., .
~ .. .....,"', ~ ~.l, ., M'
P .. H';; II \ " I'11l"T. -;. \( M .. "''''iI?
) :'-h'=I-'.TI"[A . IS\J~ Y',.- 7400 i'
I, "'~ - u '" lIlT:'" 1J!iY'/ 61~. g
Ift~~ 'II /jAYr- h~. g ~
~/ilDi 1& .... -... ~,~1 \ " ~O==c ~'"' ~~ _ g ~ n
,,0ti ' n. ~I ~ '- ...... 0 ri ..
IIf'~ 'L ~lrr ':' '-'~ J \1<. . '" .'
tJ .. ... Ji _ =' I-f- f--~ I .~~H. ~ / '(,~. . .::i-.'{:i
o ~.1 - <:UA-"/.l -/\v/ 1,Jo . tr1
ityHa..!!.. : '-l.V I _~ ... I- ILJ 717th7/J?- ~~'" ,j) O. ' ....""A. ..' 1
r ~ --= 'mTIl ITIllJ ~ ..~~ $ v~
Iter 0 ['1;'" ~~ ~] rnm~ ~~ $ . ,s 77thSt.
.. Tr=f""'-""~ }~.~ tIffiJJW~r'7. Sl t ~
~~I\ \~~~~l~~~ I l~~~veE ~
~ ~~Ul( ~ ~irll1\:::~anhaSs'" '.. .
'- ~ /1 r= ~R '-.' Bstatss ~
1 -s:t: L- ~ 1 f!:::; ..
. (fi4.~~i~~ ~~~~~~ " - 8100
"" t7~ '; ~ ~ffi"'/"
I--">. \!li! n.. ) VI.- '< ,.. WY' E::..- ,;, ~~
. . . ,. rn \' /--..~f1 I r.:\v t1
~lllH'VF~JS .i 8200 Wl..
-J' .... I /Y,io!rfoi' y=';' ..'
<>, LL v~! y< i.i ....... >'
\ ..: 1./'. "~;;';. ;{yt(s~NX/ .;
~ ' 11 ~>/77"'": . ........ ..,.
FI/-1 !'.LloJ ..~<i> ........ ~
7;';:S----; '; .<....~R .
j-, 'At! I ~ _ _ 'Lee
- I
6800
6900
-
7000
7100
_ 7200
7300
2
-
8300
usan
8400
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 2
On March 10, 1997, this variance application was reviewed and tabled by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals. The applicant was given direction to work with staff and minimize
the variance request. On April 14, 1997, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed
and denied this application. The decision of the Board is being appealed to the City Council.
There has been several changes made to the staff report. Consequently, staff is submitting a
new report to the City Council.
Article XXVII Bluff Protection, Section 20-1401 of the City Code requires all structures, including
decks, to maintain a minimum ofa thirty (30) foot setback from the top of the bluff (Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
On October 28, 1996, the City Council approved the final plat for Hiscox Addition, a three lot
subdivision, after nearly 10 years of the applicant trying to get clear title on the property. The final
plat approval was subject to 11 conditions. Existing single-family homes are located on Lots 1 and
3, so many of the conditions pertain directly to the development of Lot 2, the subject property. The
most relevant condition being number 9 which states that, "The top of the bluff is designated at the
958 contour. Development of this site is governed by the City's Bluff Protection Ordinance. A
survey of the property locating the 958 contour shall be submitted as part of the building permit
application for Lot 2, Block 1, Hiscox Addition" (Attachment 2).
Furthermore, the staff report found that the subdivision met all the requirements of district and "the
proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report."
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a 13.2 foot variance from the setback of the top of the bluff to construct
a single family residence and deck. The residence is proposed to be constructed 22.5 feet from the
top of the bluff and the deck 16.8 feet from the top of the bluff. The ordinance requires all
structures be set back 30 feet from the edge of the bluff. The top of the bluff is denoted as the 958
foot contour line on the site plan. This elevation was certified by a Minnesota Registered Surveyor.
During the replatting process, the applicant was made aware of the Bluff Protection Ordinance.
However, the applicant is requesting a variance to locate the home closer to the edge of the bluff.
Their reasoning is that this location will allow a greater view of Lotus Lake, improve neighborhood
aesthetics and offer additional space for storage. The applicant stated that this proposal should be
grandfathered in because the replatting process started prior to the adoption of the ordinance
amendment. Only structures that are existing can be grandfathered in. Staff believes that more
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 3
appropriate options are available for both the location and design of the home. (Note: A similar
home design is located at 3185 Canyon Road, Chaska.)
According to the applicant, the bluff protection ordinance has created an undue hardship because
it is prohibiting them from constructing the home of their choice. An "'undue hardship' means
the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography." The property can be put to a reasonable use as a home could be constructed
similar in design and size as those located within 500 feet. The real issue is that a single-family
home could be built on this lot. Minor adjustments to the house plan will eliminate the variance
completely. Staff fails to find a hardship in this request and variances are granted based upon
hardships. Not being able to construct a 2,600+ square foot home does not constitute a hardship. A
home should be designed to suit the property, not the other way around.
Grading/Drainage
The proposed grading plan is fairly consistent with the preliminary plat of Hiscox Addition and the
drainage plan conforms with the neighborhood drainage pattern. Relocating the home closer to the
front lot line will also maintain the correct drainage and site grades.
Landscaping and Tree Removal
The grading limits have not changed with the relocation of the house. If the variance is granted,
the applicant will be removing trees that otherwise would be outside of the grading limits and
therefore preserved. The proposed home will encroach upon the existing slope vegetation and
increase the amount and speed of runoff in that area due to the additional impervious surface. It
is important that the vegetation on the slope be maintained in its current state in order to slow
runoff into the lake and reduce erosion on the slope. The applicant will not be allowed to remove
trees or other vegetation on the bluff as stated in the ordinance. In order to maintain the health of
the existing vegetation and its ability to protect the lake from runoff and erosion, staff
recommends the applicant be prohibited from any type of grading that would attempt to level off
the rear yard.
Staff recommends denial of the variance based on the findings presented in the staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MARCH 10. AND APRIL 14. 1997.
MEETING ISSUES:
As mentioned earlier in the staff report, this application appeared twice before the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. On March 10, the application was tabled. The applicant had requested
the deck be setback 5.5 feet and the residence 11.5 feet from the edge of the bluff. The proposed
request also reflected a front yard setback of 42 feet versus the ordinance required 30 foot front yard
The applicant stated that Mr. deLancey had received a variance for the property
located just west of the subject property on Lot 9, The Frontier, consequently, they
should be allowed to build closer to the bluff.
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 4
setback. The site layout intensified the variance and staff pointed out that the house pad can easily
be shifted closer to the street to minimize impact on the bluff. Staff had concerns with this request
and recommended denial of the application. Many issues were raised at the meeting. These issues
were:
deLancev Property:
Issue:
Finding:
Aesthetics:
Issue:
Finding:
Reasonable Use:
Issue:
Finding:
Property Values:
Issue:
Finding:
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the variance,
however, the City Council stated that they wish to review the variance request after
a home plan is selected for that lot.
The applicant stated that if the home is shifted to the west and south as staff
proposed, it will negatively impact the view for 7500 Erie Avenue (the home
located immediately west of the subject property).
Staff believes that regardless of where the proposed residence is located, its presence
will affect the neighboring property.
The applicant stated that the Bluff Protection Ordinance is prohibiting them from
constructing a home similar in size to those located on Lotus Lake.
As staff mentioned earlier in the staff report, a reasonable use refers to being able to
construct a single-family home on this lot. The applicant seems to be concerned
with comparing their situation to non-conforming properties.
The applicant stated that staffs proposal would decrease the value of the adjacent
home (7500 Erie Avenue) and the proposed residence.
Letter "c" of the Findings section for a variance states that "The purpose of the
variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the
parcel of land." There is a substantial difference between being unable to utilize the
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 5
Grading:
Issue:
Finding:
land for a single-family home and maximizing profits and based upon the ordinance
findings, a variance can not be granted based upon increasing value or income.
The applicant indicated that if the house was moved from the proposed location, as
recommended by staff, there would be additional grading. The applicant also
commented on the possibility of making the rear yard more gradual.
Staff believes that if there is grading to take place, it is preferable that it happens as
far away from the bluff impact zone as possible. This area was established to
protect the bluff. The applicant could attempt to stabilize soils and minimize
erosion, however, we believe that these risks can be eliminated by reducing the
overall depth of the home and deck.
The second statement the applicant made regarding the grading of the backyard to
make it more gradual, indicates grading of the actual bluff. This activity is
prohibited by ordinance and defies the intent of the bluff protection. Also, as
mentioned in the Landscape section of this report, in order to maintain the health of
the existing vegetation and its ability to protect the lake from runoff and erosion,
staff recommends the applicant be prohibited from any type of grading that would
attempt to level off the rear yard.
Optimizing the Variance:
Issue:
Finding:
The applicant stated that as long as a variance is needed, the larger number should
be approved. That is, because a variance is required regardless of location, the
applicant should be allowed to build closer to the bluff.
If it is proven that there is no basis for a variance, it is certain that the more
environmentally damaging location would not be recommended.
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals tabled action on this application and directed staff and the
applicant to work together to reach a compromise.
On April 14, 1997, the application reappeared before the Board, however, the new location of the
residence was setback at 22.5 feet and the deck at 16.8 feet from the edge of the bluff. Staffstill
failed to find a hardship in the applicant's request and maintained the recommendation of denial.
The main issue raised at the April 14, 1997, meeting related to the source of the required 30 foot
bluff protection setback. Staff was questioned how that number was established. We explained
that it was arrived at by the Department of Natural Resources. Since then, staff contacted the
Emergency:
A fire emergency might require a fire fighter to access the rear of the home
with a hose. A maneuvering distance is required.
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 6
DNR regarding the rationale behind the distance requirement. According to Peter Leete, Acting
Area Hydrologist, this was a legislation established in 1984, charging the DNR with the task of
establishing rules to protect the bluffs. The 30 foot setback was agreed upon by a panel of experts
(consisting of 12 agencies and 60 individuals) representing both the private and public sectors.
Several factors resulted in the establishment of the 30 foot bluff protection setback (Attachment 7).
Some of these factors include:
Construction vehicles: As a rule of thumb, a 15 foot construction area is needed around a house
pad. To protect trees from construction damage, vehicles must be prevented
from driving over the roots of the tree. A tree protection fence is usually
located at a minimum distance of 15 feet form the trunk of the tree. Adding
the 15 foot construction area to the 15 foot tree protection, the required
setback would be 30 feet.
Erosion:
A panel of experts studied bluff erosion around the nation and established
the 30 foot setback based upon the steepness of the slope versus the weight
of the home during spring when the soils are saturated and erosion is at its
peak. The ordinance adopted by the City includes the 18% steepness of the
slope as determined by the panel of experts.
Aesthetics:
Development encroachment of bluff tops can compromise or eliminate the
natural appearance of the topographical feature.
In summary, the 30 foot structure setback from the bluff provides a minimum distance between the
bluff top and the planned or proposed foundations, walls or eaves of a structure for the protection of
the bluff tops from adverse environmental impacts of development and construction activities.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied the request with a vote of 2 to 1. A three vote is
required to approve a variance. Chairman Johnson's reason for voting against the variance was
failure to prove a hardship. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Board to the City Council
(Attachment 7).
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 7
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding:
The Bluff Protection Ordinance is not responsible for their hardship. The
subject property can be put to a reasonable use without the variance. The
applicant does have other options in terms of home location and design. If
the structure is shifted as far as possible to the south and west, then a
variance would only be required for a portion of the deck and porch.
However, the applicant believes that this would disrupt the front yard view
for the adjacent home. The roof could be redesigned so that this property
would have an acceptable front yard view. The house design could be
altered to fit in the buildable area or the applicant could select a more
suitable design. Staff maintains that this particular home design does no suit
this lot.
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 a petition for a variance is based are not
generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding:
The purpose of the variance may be based upon a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of land. The applicant stated at the
March 10th Board meeting that if the house is shifted to the front of the lot it
will decrease property values for 7500 Erie Avenue and the proposed
residence. This can also be construed to mean that the requested variance
will increase the value, and consequently the income, since the applicants
own the residence located at 7500 Erie Avenue.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding:
The alleged difficulty or hardship is self-created. As staff mentioned
previously, the residence should have been designed to suit the property's
topography. The Bluff Protection ordinance did not create the hardship.
This ordinance was created to protect the bluff line as well as the property
owner.
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 8
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding:
The intent of the bluff ordinance is to protect property from erosion,
decrease the visibility to surrounding properties (by not altering vegetation),
preserve the natural character of the land and protect the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens. Approval of the variance request will allow a portion
of a structure to be constructed within the bluff protection area. Disturbance
from the construction of the residence and modified drainage patterns could
lead to erosion.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding:
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
.'The City Council denies the request for a 13.2 foot variance based upon the findings presented in
the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
vanance.
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a single family home.
3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the bluff protection
ordinance. "
Should the City Council approve the variance, the following conditions shall apply:
Hiscox Variance
April 14, 1997
Page 9
1. The applicant must install tree fencing at the grading limits prior to excavation. No
equipment or storage of materials will be allowed in the protected area.
2. No vegetation removal will be allowed in excess of the grading limits. No vegetation
removal will be allowed on the bluff.
3. No grading will be allowed in the rear of the proposed home that will attempt to create a level
yard.
4. The applicant shall provide additional erosion control fencing along the eastern and southern
property lines."
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Application and letter from applicant
2. Letter from Bob Generous to Andrew Hiscox dated October 29, 1996
3. Article XXVIII. Bluff Protection Ordinance
4. Home Elevations
5. Site Plan
6. Hiscox Appeal Letter
7. Information from Peter Leete, Acting Area Hydrologist, MN Department of Natural Resources
8. Minutes from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals March 10, 1997 and April 14, 1997
meetings
, ~ ' I .~c ;1'
" ':'.' ; ..: - 4.J
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937.1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLlCA nON
FEa 1 9 7997
('ITy r~< f',' ,..'
'. ~. V"" ,"',)i('f"....II.~
. t. H 'f i....~""'.t.~,lI
PUCANT: tlY\dr-ew : Ca-.+t\l.v\f\ L 1ft sc o,/-
DRESS: -, S-Oo fl.. vie C\v e-.
t~n h..Q5S(V\, M rJ 55311
PHONE (Day time) ~l31- 2 s 00
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
-t- Variance -tv 3,l) I b .l{,d~f s~.t bc;tc.. k::'_
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development.
_ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
_ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
_ Notification Sign
Subdivision.
...x.. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost..
($50 CUP/SPRlVACNARlWAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
Site Plan Review.
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
appJication.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
- Escrow wiIJ be required for other applications through the development contract
~ - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
H I <5(D,^ 4DO l-rlDrJ
~OCATJON16 ODE. r i e- A-ve
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See '11\t\t'~};,I}~)!~t
pYDper+v1 owy-,<<?"'-~
TOTAL ACREAGE On~
PROJECT NAME
A j)
-l--c.)
'is-l- Df
0,. Hr'-L h e. cl
YES
X NO
WETlANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING R S r.::-
REQUESTED ZONING Qs ~
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Q S ~
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION R~~t==
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST V (). VI CA.. VI C c- +0 ~ 3D ~f b u,t t6 S..e::t b CLe--k
010. n rJ../v\ U- ~!v-v- Lot 2
This appfication 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 determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
1he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title. Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
1his application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 wiD keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowJedge..
The city llereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
a~UlA.J j (}^Vlv-u'~<-Ic/~~_Pl-
Signature of Applic~t '
(J~'-V[..:J i l~J~',<.,-..~ M,..,,(t)l./.-
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Received on :J..;2L) r97 Fee Paid
.2-1 C, Jj7
Date
C') - 11 -17
Date
t75~ Receipt No. t,,~~65
The appTIcant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Andrew & Catherine Hiscox
7500 Erie Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
February 19, 1997
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Request for Variance to 30 Foot Bluff Setback Ordinance Concerning Proposed Lot 2,
Hiscox Addition
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
We respectfully submit to the Board of Adjustments our request for a variance to the 30 foot bluff
setback ordinance. Also enclosed is a Certificate of Survey showing the proposed house pad and
floor elevations for your perusal.
As you are well aware, we have come a long way in our quest to build a home in Chanhassen.
We purchased the property at 7500 Erie Avenue in 1985, with the intent of subdividing the land
and building our "dream home". After finally getting the property registered in September, 1996,
and ultimately receiving Final Plat approval from the City in October 1996, we are faced with yet
another setback. Thus our request for the granting of this bluff setback variance.
It has been a long and tiring ten + years since the beginning of this process. We have worked
hard and spent tens of thousands of dollars to get to this point today. We have already scrapped
our original houseplan (drawn up in 1993 for over $5,000 with many, many wasted hours)
because of this new bluff ordinance, which we became aware of only because our neighbor to the
west (DeLancey) was before the Council to request permission for development of his land. We
think our plan should have been grandfathered in due to our extenuating circumstances, but we
decided that it was not worth the effort to continue to pursue the issue based on conversations
with you and your staff Since that time, we have worked with a new architect and have selected
a 2-story walk-out plan to attempt to fit an acceptable home on our lot. We have come to realize
that the 30-foot rear setback is causing us undue hardship and will not allow us to build the plan
we want without a variance. We feel that the new house will blend into the existing
neighborhood and better align with the adjacent homes, by being placed further back onto the lot
than the ordinace allows. This would also allow us to build a large enough garage to meet our
needs for vehicles and storage. Drainage and erosion control will not be an issue, as the natural
slope of the land will direct runoff toward the western portion of the lot, which gradually slopes
downward. No vegetation will be harmed by moving the housepad back, as the tree line follows
.Ms. Kathryn Aenenson
February 19, 1997
Page 2
the 958 contour. It is our intention to maintain the existing topography as it is today. It should
also be noted that the existing housepad will be more than 250 feet from the shoreline.
Ifwe would have been able to build at the outset, this new ordinance wouldn't have been an issue
and we wouldn't be before you now asking for your approval of this request. The problem we
face now is that we have worked long and hard to get to this stage, but stilI cannot build a home
that meets our needs without this variance. We have realized that with the growth of the suburbs
it is hard to maintain the "hometown feeling", but Chanhassen has been able to maintain that
feeling. That is the reason we have persevered when most people would have given up long ago.
It would be a different issue if we were commercial developers, out to profit from this exercise.
Weare simply asking the City to help us realize our dream we have fought so hard for.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact us at 937-2500.
Sincerely,
{4,-~v vU \ (f tf-J.i..., ~~c~
Andrew & Catherine Hiscox
enclosures
"
..
C ITV OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
October 29, 1996
Mr. Andrew Hiscox
7500 Erie Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Hiscox:
This letter is to confirm that on October 28, 1996 the City Council approved the final plat for
Hiscox Addition (Sub #87-31) subdividing 2.8 acres replatting parts of Lots 14 and IS, and all of
Lot 16, Auditor's Subdivision Number 2, and Lot 7, Block 4, South Lotus Lake Addition which
are currently two lots into 3 single-family lots subject to the following conditions:
1. The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be constructed to direct runoff away from the building.
Drainage swales shall be constructed to convey runoff around both sides of the proposed
building to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parcel.
2. Type I erosion control should be installed on Lot 2 prior to construction and maintained
until the site is fully revegetated.
3. Upon issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 and payment of the applicable connection
hookup fees, the city will extend the sewer and water service to the southerly property
line for the applicant or property owner to connect on to.
4. An existing overhead power line should be relocated underground along the common
property line between Lots 1 and 2 within the dedicated drainage and utility easement.
5. Final plat shall dedicate a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the
existing IS-foot wide sanitary easement through Lots 1,2 and 3.
6. The applicant shall provide the city with a $400.00 cash escrow account for review and
recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office.
Mr. Andrew Hiscox
October 29, 1996
Page 2
7. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance ofa
building permit for access to the lake.
8. Limited vegetative clearing, cutting, pruning, and trimming to provide a view of the water
from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings;'
picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water oriented
accessory structures is permitted below the 958 contour.
9. The top of bluff is designated at the 958 contour. Development of the site is governed by_
the City's Bluff Protection Ordinance. A survey of the property locating the 958 contour
shall be submitted as part of the building permit application for Lot 2, Block I, Hiscox
Addition.
10. Park and trail fees are required of this development. One-third (1/3) of such fees shall be
payable at the time of final platting. Park and trail fees shall be payable at the time of
building permit application at the rate in force at that time, less any fees paid at the time
of platting.
11. Individual grading, drainage, erosion control, and tree removal plans for Lot 2 shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
Two mylar copies of the final plat with two I "=200' and one I "=500' scale mylar reductions of
the final plat should be submitted to our office for signatures along with all fees, and easements
required. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
~ <vi, :-:i- /:~l-'~A("'-,,---
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
BG:v
c: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
Steve Kirchman, Building Official
g:\plan\bg\hiscox.4e
ZONING
~ 20-1402
ARTICLE XXVIII. BLUFF PROTECTION
Sec. 20-1400. Statement of intent.
Development, excavation, cIearcutting and other activities within the bluff impact zone
may result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and
thereby endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the city. To preserve the cltaracter of the bluff impact zone within the
city, alteration to land or vegetation within will not be permitted except as regulated by this
article and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the property is located.
(Ord. No. 152, ~ 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1401. Structure setbacks.
(a) Structures, including, but not limited to, decks and accessory buildings, except stair.
ways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top of the bluff
and toe of the bluff at least thirty (30) feet.
(b) On parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991,
the setback from the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for
additions to an existing building. Any new buildings will have to meet the thirty-foot setback.
Card. No. 152, ~ 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20.1402. Stairways, lifts and landings.
Stairways and lifts may be permitted in suitable sites where construction will not redirect
water flow direction and/or increase drainage velocity. Major topographic alterations are
prohibited. Stairways and lifts must receive an earthwork permit and must meet the following
design requirements:
(1) Stairways and lifts may not exceed four (4) feet in width on residential lots. Wider
stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings.
(4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or
placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures
control of soil erosion.
(5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous
portions of lots.
(6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons
are also allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of sub-
items (1) to (5) are complied with.
(Ord. No. 152, ~ 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 218, ~ 1, 8-22-94)
Supp. No.7
1273
~ 20-1403
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20.1403. Removal or alteration of vegetation.
Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone is prohibited except for
limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees to provide a
view from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and
landings and access paths.
Removal or alteration of vegetation must receive prior approval of the planning director
or designee. An on-site review will be made to determine if the removal or alteration of
vegetation will require new ground cover. In no case shall clearcutting be permitted. City staff
will work with the property owner to develop a means of creating a view while minimizing
disturbance to the bluff impact zone.
(Ord. No. 152, ~ 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1404. Topographic alterations/grading and filling.
An earthwork permit will be required for the movement of more that ten (10) cubic yards
of material within bluff impact zones. The permit shall be granted if the proposed alteration
does not adversely affect the bluff impact zone or other property. Topographic alterations/
grading and filling within the bluff impact zone shall not be permitted to increase the rate of
drainage. .The drainage from property within the bluff impact zone may not be redirected
without a permit from the city. Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact
zones.
(Ord. No. 152, ~ 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1405. Roads, driveways and parking areas.
Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed
within bluff impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exists. If
no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause
adverse impacts.
(Ord. No. 152, * 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1406. Reserved.
Editor's note-Section 2 of Ord. No. 218, adopted Aug. 22, 1994, deleted former ~ 20-406,
pertaining to the official bluff impact zone map, derived from Ord. No. 152, adopted Oct. 14,
1991.
Sec. 20-1407. Reconstruction of lawful nonconforming structures.
Lawful nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed may be recon-
structed provided that it is reconstructed within one (1) year following its damage or destruc-
tion and provided the nonconformity is not materially increased.
<Ord. No. 152, ~ 2, 10-14-91)
Supp. No.7
1274
Sees. 20.1408-20-1449. Reserved..
r-
g
~
~
.~~~;~. ~
.,. f-"'?{ ""!L.
;:-.i:SNOti ~:.":J.SQAQ:;.
XO~SIH ::I~y:)1j Mill:ldNY: ~OHON30lS3Y
~'!~~
~~
~~ ~
:l:..~ ~
FEB-27-1997 08:35
PLANCO, I NC.
C)
I:
_f
~L
~
10
a
I
1 612 452 365'3 P. 03"04
] cc - (
~
'&
~
~
. t
t
J
~
~
'-,j
-J\
--
::5:
"!
FEE ~
-27-1997
08:35
PLANCO, INC.
1 612 4
. 52 3659
P. 04/[14
~
'^
---
:I
~
13
.. .. -,..
-- -- .
.--
._.-~
'>
~
~
~
~
..::c
~.
-
.ciL
; I
f i
II
II
\
~I
<;i)
..,
\..
..'
\
..
APR-15-1997 14:16 FROM HISCOX FAX
TO
9375739 P.01
Andrew & Clllllrln8 Rlsel.
7500 Erie Avenue
ChmhasscD, MN 55317
Phone 937-2500
Fax 937-0000
VIA FACSlMILI - (612) 937-5739
April 15, 1997
Ms. Cynthia R Kirchoff
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Cindy,
This letter is to inform you that we wish to appeal the Board of Adjustments 2(for)-}(against) vote concerning our
request for a variance to the bluff set-back ordinance.
We respectfully request that our variance request be heard before the City Council on April 28, 1997.
If you have any questions, please call us.
Sincerely,
Odl~~
Cate and Andrew Hiscox
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
U~ lJ.I1TERS
4-23-97 12:01; 6127727573 =>
F'ax:612-296-0445 rpr 23 '97
612 937 5739;
#2/5
10:14
P.Olf04
7871 Olilt" t'-~p.,.
From F~
Co.
/.. EVALUATION OF SHOR~LAND
COlINTIES AND TOWNSllIPS
~noll~ f
f!hal'l" "
~~j
F~"II
:,L LOCAL OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORELAND PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENTS
4. SHORELANO DEV~LOPMENT T~ENDS
5. A RIVER CtASSIFICATION SYSTEM
8. SnORELANO RESIDENTS - 1\. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
In addition to the evaluations conducted during the SUP, DNR
staff ha.ve also used several other approaches fo.
identifying needed revisions to the program. In 19S5, 8
preliminary draCt of regulation rAvisions was deVQloped and
circulated to DNR, Division ot WatA~S !'leld staff, to all
county planning and zoning otticlalg in th9 atate, and to
staff personnel ot six other st~tq agencies idQntified in
the .shoreland Act as h~vi.ng responsibilities to provide
assistance to DNR in developing th~ state r_gulations.
'rhcse agencies i.nclu~e~ thA POllution Cont.~ol Agency, ~pt.
of Health, State Planning Ag.~~y, Dept. of Energy and
Economic Development, Histor.i.ci!!Il Society, and tha Dept. of
Agriculture (Board Of Soil and war.Ar Resources). Oivi~ion
of Waters staff lhen held a ~eries Of heetings a~ound the
st~t. with the county Officials to discuss the draft and
also met several times wi~h the state agency personnal.
V~rious discussions were alsn held with r~presQntatiV9S of
'Various divisions and. bll't"P.'aus within th. DNR.
__.,.s~-
.- ------
---'-
Next, a Public ReviQv nraf~ was pr~pared based on the fibove
discussions and. released in August of 1986 for broad review
and comment by the Public and otho~s. Division of Waters
staft then scheduleel, publicized, and conducted a serle!; of
23 public meeting,. l'lt. 12 sites around the state to receive
cummentsr identlry Intore~t groups, and develop a mailinq
list tor later dh~~'t'iblltion of drafts and hearinq notices.
Several inter.llt:. qroups subsequent.ly requested ONR stl'!l ff too
dLtend ac!dlt1onal meetings of their organiaations to anSWQr
questions an~ ~ec~ive comments. Some of ~h~se groups were
quite concernad ~bout various parts of the proposed
revisions 4!lnd al!::o felt t.here had not. yet been sufficient
opportunit.ies for th~ir input. Several orqaniza'tions and
local g-overmnents reques'tod DNR not to procell!!d to public
haarinq~ and, inste&d, to o~ganize a committee ot interest
gTonl1~ to review the prcpo$als.
\
:3
NT BY: DNR METRO;
U~fI( lI.Hll:~S
4-23-97 12:02; 6127727573 =>
Fax:612-296--Q445 ~r 23 '97
\
\
\
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
i
i
,
j
j
j
i
:
i
!
\
I
612 937 5739;
10:15 P.Q3/04
DNR ~tatf decided to re.pond to this requaet by ereatinq a
comm~ttQG of interest qroup. to ~eview the mORt recant dratt
of the proposed rogulation r~~i~ions (April~ '87). Rathe.r
t:han eGtablish just an "Advisory" committa~ to Ilr.comlltendlr
f~rther revisions to the DNR, a decision was made to t~ a
relatively new approach of having the eo~itto. opera~~ on a
"concensus" basillJ i!lS much as possib1Q. This IIeans that
particular issues would be disoussed until a position was
reached which no individual oo=mittoe me~c~ would vote to
oppose even though they migh~ no~ complotely favor it. In
such a committee format each me~er, inoluding the DNR
representatiY8, ~ould essentially have 6qual _tanding. Tho
ONR aleo d6cided it ~ould make a co~itmGnt ~o the committeQ
at the be~innini ot the proees& that it would take the
outcome of ~he Qommittee's efforts to official pUblic
hearings withoue fu~ther signifieant revi~ions. TWo staff
perGons from the DNR's Bureau ot Planning with experience in
this type of process wel:'e enlisted to ~ct as "faeilieators"
to organize the procoss an~ attempt to ke.p discussion
moving along toward the qoal of reaching concenSU$. The
committee process was begun by DNR seatf contacting all the
organizations and interest groups wi~ state-wide, or at
least regional, constituencies iden~ifi.d in the public
review periods to requeet th~!r involvement in the process.
They were also asked to de8iqnate a repres8n~4~ive and one
or mora alterna~*. to participata in the proce~5. The
followinq organizations A~eed ~o p.rtioipa~.:
Minnesota Association of Planning and Zonin~ Adainistrators
Minne90ta Resort Association
Minnesota Planninq Association 0
Minnesota Land Surveyoro Assoeia~ion
Minne~Qt. Association of county Land C~iasioners
Minnesota tarm 8ureau Federation
Minnesota Assoeiation gf Realtors
Missi$sippi Headwater. Board
Minnesota Association of Soil , Water Conservation Districts
League of Municipalities
Minnesota Lak~ H.nag~ant Federation
Coalition of Lake Associations
Association ot Minnesuta counties
Audubon society
~onqr.s& of Minnesota Resorts
MinnesQta ~nvironmental Ouali~y Soard
Taylor !nveetment Corporation-;"O
Minnesota Sportfishinq Conqre~5
Minnesota Association of Townships
Izaak Walton League
Minnesota Offlce of Tourism
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
4
#3/5
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
l1'.JR UATERS
\
t
I
j
I
i
\
\
1
I
4-23-97 12:02; 6127727573 =>
612 937 5739;
#4/5
Fax:612-296-0445
~r 23 '97
10=14 P.02/04
The Co~ittee beqan its work in July, '87 and met OV~ry
other week for an enti2:el day in St. CloUd. A tolal of
twelve meeting's weX-e held, finishing in Oecelnber. A. draft
with all the Comnlittea's ~evi$ions was prepared and the
qroups took this back to their o:rgi!lnizoi!ltio1l5 tor z;-evlew in
prepa~ation tor a final two-day meetin9 which WdS held in
Feb., '88. Ex:tensive additional re....iBioll~ were made at this
meeting. ThesQ were th~t incorpor~ted into another dr.aft,
which was then submitted to the Revisor of Statutes Office
tor preparation of ~n official hearing draft.
_.
EO AND REASONASLENESS OF PROPOSED REVISIONS
.~
The format of this section will follow the existinq o.ttrrGnt.
format of the shoreland regul~tions for municipalit1p.s
(Minnesota nUles, parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900), except that
the fir&t part, 6120.2500 DEFINITIONS, Will be skipped and
the definitions of releYant new definitions will be
addres$ed as they appear in subseqUent parts.
6120.2600 POLICY
All of the proposed ehanqe5 in this part ~re minor. A
phrase referencing the ~973 session 1aws in which the
~mendment to the original Shcreland Act to include
munieipalitie. appea:r:::. ill' proposed to be delAted, sine. the
Revisor of statutes Office has indicated that such
references ~r. no longer needed in state rUIQ~. A couple Of
statute chapt.rs, (Minn. Stat. Chaps. 394 and 396, ar@
proposed to be added to a stata~ent which references
statutory polie!.. becauae they appeared in the county
regulations, Which are being' ellL..ll;"ely rescinded as part of
the oonsolidation of the two existing sets of rulsa into
one. A phrase indicating use of the term .tcommhUlloherlt in
the rules m.eans th. cOW'llissioner of'natural resour.~AR is
proposed to be del.ted here and handled inseead by adding a
definition of commislJioner (61'-O.~500, Subp. 38.). The
re~inin9 proposed revisions ~o this part are either
deletions of the term Mmunieipality" for the r~a50ns
ex~lAined above, Dr are minor wording revisions made by the
Revisor's Office.
6120.2700 MINIMUM STAND~DS AND CRITERIA
This entire pa.t is proposec1 to be deleted because lnost or
it 1s just a S\Ulllllary listinq ot the major topics cover~d in
5
NT BY: DNR METRO;
INR WiTERS
4-23-97 12:03; 6127727573 =>
612 937 5739;
Fax:612-~4S
f1lr 23 '97
10:15 P.04J04
those are~& are u9ually al~Gady highly developed and the
pres.rvat1on of open space tor on site sewaqe treat~Ant
a~3tems is not necessary. rurthGr, a SO foot OHWL s.~aok
w~ll raasonably allow for installation or pr&serv~tion anQ
maintenanee ot veqetation or other faoilities that oan
intercept precipitation and tilter or ~educe surface water
runoff ~elooiti.& in these_ QAvAtoped ar.a., thereby
addresslng w~ter quality and quantity ooncerns.
------.-.~:~ sGtbackll; from bluff' tops for a't.ructures .in all Shoreta::--l
clasGQs is needed ~nd reasonable to protect glutt tops from
adverse environmental impaets of development and I
construQtion aetivitiesl These impacts can be measU4ed in j
both phY8ic~1 and aesthetio terms. Physically, davolopment :
encroachment on bluff tops can lead to aocelerated soil ;
erosion and in some caaes, slopa failure. Aosth.~ically, I
development encroach~ent on bluff tops gan oompromise or l
eliminate the natural appearance of this topographical I
i feature in shoreland areas. The 30 foot struoture satback \
from the bluff top provides a minimum distanoe between the i
bluff top and the planned or proposed found&~ions, walls or I
eaves of a structure for the maneuvering of buildin9 I
mnterials during construction. consequently, the l
preservation of soils oan rod~ce or avoid erosion problems, :
and preservation and maintenanoQ of VGgetat~oncan protec~ i
\ soils, screen developmont and maintain the natural i
. appearance of bluff area~. Neoessary shoreland altara't.ions I
I ~uch as el~arinq ot vegetation to accommodate 8tructures can
be gonduc~ed within the first 10 feet waterward of the bluff
" top setb~ck area until the bluff impact zone ~s oncountered, '
which i. defined as. being 20 feet frOll the 'top of the bluff '
I and the whole blUff. (i.e., 20 feet plus 10 feet = 30 ~eet;
\ the width of the bluff setback area). It is noted for
clcrity that the bluff impact zone i. ..tablished for
preserv~tion and man~qement of shore land veqetation and
I soils, and all structural developmen~ is exoluded from this
I zone, except for stairwaya, lifts and landinqs. (see Item I
(' of this subpart for stairways ~ lifta and see Item C of this
Subpart and Subp. 4 of Part 6120.3300 for Ad4itional
discussion of bluff impact zone.).
, ~-Tfie statement. of need describing the detinitions relevant
V to the above di5cu..ion of bluff &etbAck. and blutt lmp~ct
zon.. are discu~5.d below.
$~ 1)). II11ffi The dBt'inition of a bluff 1s n..,?-ec1
because or the new proposAl to manage bluff area. .n
shoreland areas, as described in the Statement of Need for
blu~~ top s.tbacks and bluff 1~paet zon8S~ Th. tapoqraphic
28
#5/5
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 10, 1997
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II and Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
A 24.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT REQUIRED BLUFF SETBACK TO
ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DECK TO BE LOCATED 11 FT. AND
5.5 FT. RESPECTIVELY. FROM THE EDGE OF THE BLUFF. ANDREW AND
CATHERINE HISCOX.
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report.
Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing.
Cate Hiscox stated that the goal of this proposal is to maximize the views of the property and to
ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. She stated that the home location will
maintain the topography.
Andrew Hiscox stated that:
. there are a limited number of places to put the home on this lot and many cubic yards of soil
would have to be moved or removed if the house was shifted to the south and west as staff
proposed.
. this proposal fits better between the two existing homes, blends in with the neighborhood and
would cause less erosion.
. the variance should be optimized as both proposals require a variance so he would prefer the
larger number.
. staff s recommendation would decrease the value of the house to the west as well as the
proposed residence.
. they have spent $5,000 and have reviewed many house plans in order to find this plan. He
stated that they are willing to compromise and would be pleased to build in either location.
He stated that their neighbors approve of this location.
. the staff report indicated that a hardship means the property cannot be put to a reasonable use
and a reasonable use includes the uses of the majority of those within 500 feet. He stated that
16 homes are located on the bluff in the area.
. they have to build a smaller home because of the ordinance, therefore, they have a hardship.
. any trees or vegetation removed will be replaced and grading in the rear yard may be needed
to make the yard more gradual.
. the ordinance is causing them an undue hardship because they cannot construct a house
comparable to those within 500 feet. He stated that many of the adjacent homes are
constructed on the bluff or are 35 year old ramblers worth $100,000.
Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting Minutes
March 10, 1997
Page 2
Steve Berquist asked when the Bluff Protection Ordinance was amended to include all bluffare~s
in the city.
Sharmin AI-Jaffstated that the 1993 amendment referred to the side of the bluff.
Berquist asked why the house was not constructed prior to the amendment.
Cate Hiscox stated that the Torrens procedures held up the process.
Berquist stated that the applicant was granted several extensions.
Cate Hiscox stated that they were granted extension because the final plat of this property could
not be approved until the Torrens was completed.
Berquist stated that he understands the concerns regarding home location as the shifting of the
proposal would negatively affect the neighborhood, but approving the variance would set a
precedence for the deLancy property.
Berquist stated that run-off is associated with the amount of impervious surface. He stated that
he would like to see the house get built.
Andrew Hiscox stated that if they move the house to the south and west it ruins the view of the
adjacent home.
Berquist asked how far the house can be pulled to the front lot line and what effect moving the
house 5, 10 or 15 feet will have on the bluff. He asked if this home could have been built prior to
the ordinance.
AI-Jaff stated that it could have been built but the Bluff Protection ordinance was adopted to
minimize the affects of erosion on bluffs.
Berquist asked what lead to the ordinance amendment.
AI-Jaff stated that excessive grading had taken place in other subdivisions and homes were built
along the bluff. She explained that the ordinance was adopted to prevent the destruction of the
bluffs. Ms. AI-Jaffstated that a previous request for a variance to the bluff protection setback
was denied.
Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting Minutes
March 10, 1997
Page 3
Carol Watson stated that she does not want the house built that close to the bluff and that this
house is too large for this lot. She stated that destruction led to the bluff ordinance and grading
close to the bluff will cause erosion which will result in runoff into the lake.
Andrew Hiscox stated that the sanitary sewer runs into Lotus Lake on this property and this
house would have less of an impact. He stated that he understands that the City is trying to
correct the situation.
AI-Jaff stated that a reasonable use means that a single family home can be constructed on the
property.
Watson stated that there is a large buildable area on this lot.
Cate Hiscox stated that this home plan meets the family's needs because it allows for additional
storage.
Watson stated that she would prefer that the variance be tabled so that the applicant and staff may
come up with a compromise on the home location.
Willard Johnson agreed.
Berquist stated that the house could be pulled forward 5 feet making the deck 10.5 feet and the
house 16.5 feet from the bluff.
Andrew Hiscox stated that this is the last lot available on Lotus Lake and that they are willing to
go half-way.
Johnson stated that a house could fit on that property.
Watson motioned to deny the variance. She stated that she would prefer to table and
compromise.
Berquist stated that he had stated his views and Carol and Willard had not given direction.
Watson stated that that house should not be in the bluff impact zone.
Berquist asked if staff is following the ordinance. AI-Jaffstated that staff is upholding the
ordinance.
Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting Minutes
March 10, 1997
Page 4
Andrew Hiscox stated that staff is not willing to compromise. Cate Hiscox stated that they are
willing to work with staff.
AI-Jaff stated that staffwill take direction from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and, if
instructed to do so, will investigate alternatives.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded a motion to table the 24.5 foot variance form the bluff setback
for the construction of a single family home and deck. All voted in favor and the motion carried
with a vote of2 to O.
Watson stated that the applicant should work with the engineering department to determine
appropriate grading. She stated that the applicant should be concerned only with this property,
not with others located on the bluff. She stated that there is no magic number of feet that the
house should be from the bluff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Johnson stated that he would like to amend the minutes to read
"Johnson Watson stated that Pleasant View Road is icy and treacherous." Watson moved,
Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated
February 10, 1997 with the amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to extend the public hearing to further discuss the request for
vanance.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff
Planner I
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 14, 1997
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6: 15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Mayor Nancy Mancino and Steve Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II and Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
A 13.2 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT REOUIRED BLUFF SETBACK TO
ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DECK TO BE LOCATED 22.5 FT.
AND 16.8 FT. RESPECTIVELY. FROM THE EDGE OF THE BLUFF. ANDREW AND
CATHERINE HISCOX.
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report.
Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing.
Andrew Hiscox stated that they could not build on this lot because they could not get clear title to
the property. He also stated that this is a reasonable use of the land.
Nancy Mancino stated that this ordinance was enacted to protect the bluff from erosion.
Andrew Hiscox stated that the storm water that flows into the lake is more environmentally
damaging than the proposed house. He stated that the revised proposal is still aesthetically
pleasing and that erosion can be controlled through landscaping.
Willard Johnson stated the applicants do not have a hardship.
Cate Hiscox stated that they might not have a hardship but they like the house plan and they have
compromised with staff. She said that staffs proposal is not acceptable. Andrew Hiscox stated
that staff s proposal still requires a variance.
Steve Berquist stated that he understands the impact that this proposal will have on the existing
structure. He stated that the bluff will be protected by the four conditions of approval
recommended by staff.
Andrew Hiscox stated the proposed residence has been shifted to the 30 foot front yard setback.
Berquist asked if the 958 contour line protects the bluff. Sharmin AI-Jaff stated that it does.
Berquist asked how the 30 foot setback was determined. AI-Jaff stated that this number was
established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting Minutes
March 10, 1997
Page 2
Mancino stated that she has concerns with the bluff condition during construction. Berquist
stated that loading and grading will be uphill so bluff damage should be minimal.
Andrew Hiscox stated that there will be additional grading because the house will be located
further from the bluff. He stated that they do not want to destroy the bluff.
Berquist moved, Mancino seconded a motion to approve the 13.2 foot variance from the bluff
setback for the construction of a single family home and deck. Johnson opposed. The motion
failed with a vote of2 to I (unanimous vote necessary).
AI-Jaff stated that the applicant could appeal this decision to the City Council.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berquist moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated March 10, 1997. Johnson and Berquist voted in favor,
Mancino abstained.
Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing.
Berquist moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff
Planner I