Loading...
1b 7000 Utica Lane CITYOF 770:3 Market Boulsvard PO Box 147 O' ' ,,,,N 5,~J / Administration phn~-C- ~ ........ b2.22,.1100 Fzx: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections P'";,n~: 952.227.1180 ~,: 952.227 ii90 Engineering F':r:e: 952.227.1!60 F5>" 952.227.! ~ 70 Finance Park & Recreation P-:, ~..;.17' ~.27 ;!2{ 952 227.;4S Planning & Natural Resources ?2¢ 962.221.{iS2 Public Works !591 Par? RcS P%:;._-v 952.227 ~303 Fs~:: 952.227.i3i9 Senior Center P~3~: 952.227.i!25 FR:~ Web Site v..','-,'.'.ci.-i x N h_; s~ ~ q. F.q MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: Jason Angell, Planner I August 27, 2002 SUBJ: Variance 2001-6 Extension, Heidi Carisch & Vernon Hall, 7000 Utica Lane On November 6, 2001, the sUbject variance was granted for a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a deck addition. The City Code states that a variance is void within one year if substantial action has not been taken on the project. Since that time, the applicants have only a portion of their project completed. Therefore, they are requesting a one year extension for this variance. Staff recommends that the City Council grant a one year extension for variance 2001-6. ATTACHME~ 1. Letter from owners requesting the extension received August 27, 2002. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated November 6, 2001. The City o! Chanhassen · A ~,o~,,,ino_ ccsmur,/t/:~'it,~ clean lak,~s, quaii~? schools, a cha,,'m,,ing down/own, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A grot p!ace to live. work, and piay. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Heidi Carisch & Vernon Hall 7000 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN S $ 317 Dear Julie Grove or Planning Department, On November 6, 2001 we received a fourteen (14) variance from the seventy-five (75) foot shore land setback for the construction of a deck. Due to unforeseen situations we are starting construction later than we had planned at the time of receiving the variance. We are now just getting started on the house construction and plan to construct the deck during the summer of 2003. To build on this schedule we are requesting a one year extension on the above mentioned variance. We appreciate your understanding. Attached is a copy of the cover sheet of the staff report and the confirmation letter. We look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your time. Sincerely, Vernon Hall RECEIVED 2 7 ?_002 OF OHAN,'tASSEN CITY OF Pc DATE: 11/6/01 CC DATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 11/10/01 CASE #: 2001-6 By: Grove J. STAFF REPORT LOCATION: APPLICANT: 7000 Utica Lane Lot 20, Block 1, Greenwood Shores Heidi Carisch & Vernon Hall 7000 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single-Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density ACREAGE: 32,967 square feet DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: As part of a remodeling project the applicant is requesting a variance from the lakeshore setback for the construction of a deck. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet, and all property owners on the lake. 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 burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. Carisch Variance November 6, 2001 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-481 of the ordinance requires a seventy-five (75) foot structural setback from the ordinary high water level (OHW) on recreational development lakes. Section 20-72(b) states if a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. BACKGROUND In 1959 the Greenwood Shores subdivision was platted with 84 lots. When the subject home was constructed, in 1960, it was setback approximately 75 feet from the current OHW from Lake Lucy, a recreational development lake. There is also an existing porch attached to the rear of the home, setback 62 feet from the OHW. The City requires a 75 foot setback. Staff surveyed aerial photographs, dated April 1989, and city files of the riparian lots in this subdivision. It was determined that all structures on 8 of 12 riparian lots meet the setback. The exception includes Lots 16, 19, 20 and 21. In 1997, Lot 19 was granted a variance to construct a deck 58 feet from the OHW. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback to construct a new second level deck. The proposed deck would wrap around the north, west and south sides of the home and be placed above the existing porch. Currently, a 14 foot by 14 foot porch is located on the first level in the rear of the home, 62 feet from the OHW. The applicant believes that a deck would provide enjoyment of the lake views. All of the neighboring properties do have decks (See Attachment 4 for photographs). The existing home is a nonconforming structure as the porch is positioned 62 feet from the lake. The city codes states that if a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements (section 20-72(b)). Although the deck will not protrude further into the setback than the existing porch, it will, in essence, create a non-conforming setback. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single-family home with a two-stall garage. The property owner currently does have a reasonable use of the site. Staff does not believe a hardship has been demonstrated and does not recommend approval of the variance for the construction of a new deck. DNR COMMENTS Peter Leete, a Hydrologist at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviewed this variance request and provided the following comments (See Attachment 6): Cafisch Variance November 6, 2001 Page 3 1. "I do not consider their needing a deck as being a hardship request. , o They are not increasing the setback distance, but the size of the structure footprint will be increased. The City should consider the potential for setting a precedent for such a variance request. While an individual request such as this may seem minimal, there will no doubt be many more such requests as the homes along shorelines are upgraded over time. The City should consider the cumulative impact of this request, and the potential for overall weakening of the shoreland ordinances (and the intended benefits these ordinances provided to the lake itself). Should the variance be granted, I recommend attaching provisions for vegetative screening on the lakeside of the home. Additionally, runoff from the site should be such that untreated sto~rnwater does not enter the lake (either via direct runoff, or via runoff to the street system). Various methods of landscaping can significantly reduce the amount of runoff leaving the site." 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: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical 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 applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of this variance. The property owner does have reasonable use as a single family home with a porch exists on this site. The applicant does have the opportunity to use and enjoy their property without the additional deck. Approving this variance will increase the size of the nonconformity of the structure. bo 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 applicable, generally, 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 this variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income of the property, but to improve the home physically. .Carisch Variance November 6, 2001 Page 4 do The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Staff believes that the hardship is self-created. The proposal for the additional deck is creating a hardship. So 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 granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the neighborhood. 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 variance 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 the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies the request for a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction 39 foot by 12 foot deck based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has an opportunity to enjoy a reasonable use of the property without a new deck. 3. The proposed deck will increase the size of the nonconforming structure." Should the Planning Commission choose to grant the variance request, staff would recommend the following conditions' 1. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that provides vegetative screen from the lake. 2. The applicant should demonstrate that no additional stormwater should be directed to the lake. 3. The deck may not be enclosed. Attachments 1. Application & letter 2. Section 20-481, Shoreland Management District, Placement of Structure 3. Section 20-72(b), Nonconforming Uses and Structures Carisch Variance November 6,2001 Page 5 4. Site Plan (pictures will be shown at meeting) 5. Approximate structure setbacks on Lake Lucy 6. Memo from Peter Leete (DNR), October 25, 2001 7. Public hearing notice and property owners g:\plan\jh\proj ects\variance\carisch.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ¢/ '" '{ c?. ! ("~'67" -. OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: ____ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary SaFes Permit Conditional Use Permit ___ Vacation of ROW/Easements ___ interim Use Permit Variance .._._. Non-conforming Use Permit ..___ Wetland Alteration Permit ___ Planned Unit Development* ..____ Zoning Appeal ____ Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review __ Site Plan Review* Subdivision* Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUPISPRIVACNARANAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ,A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of ,transparency for eac~ plan- sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract DIE -When multiple apPlications are processed the aooror~riRf~ f~ _~h~ll h~ r'h~rr~H fnr ~nnh ~nnlir'~tinn 'aO.rECT ME .l_EO_m~ D£SCRIPTION L 2001 'TOTAL ACREAGE . , ¥.2~fLANDSPRESENT YES ~ NO :~SLESENT ZONING I~EDUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION .~:LEC)UF___STED LAND USE DESIGNATION 'REASON FOR THIS REQUEST /"/~"bL.(. "This application 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 DeparZment 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 ~f ap. plJcatJon deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. q-hi's is'to certffy 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 applica!ion should be processed in my name and I am the party whom 'the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of. Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make ~hLs application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I wD '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 J~now]edge. , -The c'rty hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing -requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day -extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review ,extensions are approved by the applicant. Si..gnaLure o[ Applicant SLqnature of Fee Owner Date Date ~pp]]caI~on Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. 'The appl'icant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. :Ii' not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, Block 1, GREENWOOD SHORES, Carver County, Minnesota according to the record plat thereof. ' Property Address: 7000 Utica Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 The following is a description of the variance requested. We are requesting a variance of the distance require from the Original High Water Line (O.H.W.L.) reduced from 75' to 61' so we will be able to update our home including the addition of decks on the second level of the home. This variance is requested only for the second level decking. The decks would be on the second level on the north, west and south sideS of the house, see Certificate of Survey plot drawing, without adding anymore hardcover to the ground nor changing the existing slab portion that is now on ground level and screened as a porch. We would like our home to be aesthetically similar to the surrounding houses. (See photographs of surrounding homes.) All of our neighbors including the majority of the homes on the east shore of Lake Lucy have decks over looking the lake. The reasoning for these decks and the request for our variance is to have additional exits and to enjoy this wonderful and peaceful lake. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, Block 1, GREENWOOD SHORES, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof. Property Address: 7000 Utica Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58) as follows: a. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means 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 five hundred feet of it (500 feet). The intent of this provision is not to alIow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing from them meet this criteria. Residing at 7000 Utica Lane in Chanhassen, we are requesting a variance as we feel the literal enforcement has caused undue hardship. Our home was built in the early 1960's and in requesting this variance we are looking to update the home including the addition of decks on the second level of the home. The decks would be on the second level on the north, west and south sides of the house. (See Certificate of Survey plot drawing.) In doing this we will neither be adding more hardcover to the ground nor changing the existing slab portion that is now on ground level and screened as a porch. This addition will impose no encroachment on neighbors view or site line, nor will it encroach on the lake. We would like our home to be aesthetically similar to the surrounding houses. (See photographs of surrounding homes.) Ail of our neighbors including the majority of the homes on the east shore of Lake Lucy have decks over looking the lake. The reasoning for these decks and the request for our variance is to have additional exits and to enjoy this wonderful and peaceful lake. Again, in requesting this variance we are hoping to enjoy our home to its fullest extent as the rest of the lake shore neighbors are able to do. In doing this we are able to keep the impact on the land and footprint of the addition to a minimum. b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Not applicable. GIiY Ut:' Gt~F~ign~$~F-N PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, Block 1, GREENWOOD SHORES, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof. Property Address: 7000 Utica Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58) as follows: (continued) c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value of income potential of the parcel of land. The purpose of the requested variance is to enable us to update our home physically and aesthetically. Our intent is to reside here indefinitely and we feel these alterations are keeping within current design standards as well as neighborhood aesthetics. d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. The lack of a deck area is not a self-created hardship, the house and surrounding property are in the same state as they were when purchased in 1994. There have been no improvements since the purchase in 1994 and the home needs repairing and updating. e. That 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 of land is located. The addition of a deck is definitely not detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to the land or other improvements in the neighborhood. In fact, this project will definitely be an improvement without changing the character of the area. f. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. This proposed variation will not impair the supply of light or air, congest the public streets, nor create the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. This will improve the appearance and function of the house and support if not improve property values in the neighborhood. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 322 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF TI-YE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Section 20-481 (a) shall be modified to read: Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placeme~tt of structures o~ lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Structures Structures Sewered Sewage Treatment Waters Unsewered System LAKES Natural environment 150 150 150 Recreational 100 75 75 development RIVERS Agricultural and 100 50 75 tributary One (1) water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 25th day of June, 2001. AT-FEST: ~odd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager Linda C. Jansen, May~6r (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 5, 2001) § 20-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-60. Denial. Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-4(6)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-61--20.70. Reserved. DMSION 4. NONCONFORMING USES* Sec. 20.71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet ali ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any noncon- forming use, building, or structure; (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relo- cation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single~family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (c) No nonconforming use shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, only land uses which are permitted by this ordinance shall be allowed to be established. *Editor's note-Section 2 of Ord. No. 165, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, amended Div. 4 in its entirety to read as set out in §§ 20-71-20.73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 contained §§ 20-71-20-78, which pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. No. 163, § 1, adopted Feb. 24, 1992. Supp. No. 4 1164 AREA = 29JSJ~k S.F. I I : I I I Jl : I ¥ j ~ E~lsUn~ House JJ :I 1 20 O/~ > °"'c>,. - 220! "~U'~:t~.,.'' ~J.%/ denotes loth set et O.H.W.L. d~notes Droinoga ~ Utility Eosement >lot of GREENWOOD SHORES denotes iron monument found Requested denotes iron pipe set ond morked R,L.S. No. 14343 denotes soil boring denotes percolation test hole i I / / Ex/sUng Houso Heidi Carisch Date: JDr~wn By: Scale: ~Check~ed By', 5o ! ',, / / / / I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the St~jMinnes°ta'o.~ Paul E. Otto Date: ~'-/~-O/ License # 40062 PROPER TY DESCRIP 770N: Lot 20, Block I, GREENWOOD SHORES, Carver County, Minnesota, occord/ng to the record plot thereof,  Web Si~e: v,.,~.otloassodales.cam I I V ~u~,~ms~ No, ~.~.~s..~,.,.~. 0589