Loading...
5.5 Jasper Development Variance Appeal1 I MEMORANDUM T5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 22, 1994 SUBJ: Jasper Development's Variance (94 -10) Appeal to City Council BACKGROUND At the November 14, 1994 meeting, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied Jasper Development's appeal for a one and a half (1fi) foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a three season porch. The twenty -five (25) foot setback requirement was established by the PUD agreement for Lake Susan Hills. The Board based their decision on the following findings: 1) The Board has set a precedent of asking people to remove structures which do not comply with setback requirements; ' 2) The city building official made a very strong effort to correct the possible encroachment before the structure was erected.; ' 3) The applicant did not submit the requested information to the building official when asked for, and proceeded with construction of the three season porch. ANALYSIS On May 19, 1994 the city received a compliant regarding the construction of a three season ' porch within the required setback. The city building officials made numerous attempts to correct the possible violation before the porch was constructed. However, the applicant proceeded to construct the porch without verifying the setback. The applicant is now requesting an after the fact variance which would allow the three season porch to remain as built. r 0 Don Ashworth November 22, 1994 Page2 Jasper Development is appealing the Board's decision for the following reasons: They did not act with blatant disregard for the city requirements; a misunderstanding occurred between the applicant and the building officials; and the variance is a minimal request that will not negatively impact surrounding properties. (see attached letter from Jasper Development dated November 18, 1994) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal for a one and a half (1 foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a three season porch ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant 2. Board of Adjustment and Appeals minutes dated November 14, 1994 3. Staff Report I CHANHASSEN BOARD OF �. ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1994 , Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRES Carol Watson, Willard Johnson and Don Chmiel ' STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I and Steve Turell, Building Inspector I A ONE AND A HALF (1 1/2) FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT SE TBACK , REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE SEASON PORCH JASPER DEVELOPMENT. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Is Mr. Jasper here? i Rask: Yes. , Johnson: Would you wish to comment first? Larry Harris: Thank you members of the Board. My name is Larry Harris. I represent the ' developer, Jasper Development. Staff is absolutely right. This is an after the fact variance and I will make no bones about that. The developer is before the Board with some egg on his face. His problem arose because of an surveying error. There's some additional ' background that I'd like to give the Board and I'm going to make some comments about the City of Chanhassen, and I want you to understand this is the developer's problem. I don't think it's 100 ° %o the developer's problem but it's primarily the developer's problem and that's why we're here. I would like to provide the Board with copies of-documents. First is a building permit survey for the property. Second is copies of the city's footings inspection ' report. And the third are copies of the city's foundation inspection report. In conformance with standard Chanhassen practice, the developer submitted a building permit survey for the property. That's the first exhibit I've given you. The parcel that we're talking about today is 8283 Essex Road. It's the one that shows as Lot 1, Block 1. The encroachment into the setback we're talking about is on the northeast corner of the deck on Lot 1. It sits right up about here. It's about a 15 inch encroachment. The building permit plan was approved by ' the appropriate departments of the city of Chanhassen and the building permit was issued. On April 12th the footings had been dug and a typical footings inspection was done. On May 10th a foundation inspection was done by city staff, the inspection department, and the foundation was approved. Corrections were noted but you'll notice number 7, that the setbacks were okay. Based upon that, the developer proceeded with construction of the ■ I� v i Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 property. The city did issue a stop work order on July 8th. However, at the time the stop work order was issued, the three season porch was already up, constructed and enclosed. At ' that point in time a representative from Jasper talked with city staff and said okay. We understand there's been a complaint and the agreement was, we'll go out and get an as built survey done. You lift your stop work order and we'll proceed. Well the as built survey shows that whoever made the complaint was correct. There's a 15 inch encroachment there. Now somebody from the Board is about to say, it's really not the city's responsibility to verify setbacks Mr. Harris, and I'm going to have to say again, you're probably right. But the city ' does inspect for setbacks. They said it was alright. The developer went ahead and built based upon that. Once again ultimately his responsibility but it kind of goes back to my initial comments that ... the issue of Jasper Development, it's their responsibility. The city was ' involved and the city had, at least at the time of the foundation inspections, approved the setbacks. Taking all that into account, just as background, I think we have to look at the factors in your ordinance of whether or not a variance can be granted. City staff has already indicated that the last couple of factors under your ordinance aren't in issue. I'd like to suggest some reasons why the first factors are also not at issue and it's appropriate to grant a variance. First of all, your first recommendation, literal enforcement would cause an undue ' hardship. What that provision also says that variances that will blend with pre- existing standards established in the neighborhood are okay. Well let's be blunt. Prairie Creek is a high class neighborhood. They platted it. They developed it. They've built these units. All of these units, except one, have enclosed 3 season porches. The one that doesn't has a deck. Granting this variance will just ensure continuity in the neighborhood. Another criteria is that a variance not be applicable to other properties in the same zoning classification. I would ' suggest that that's not applicable because there are no other adjacent zoning classifications. This is a PUD. In essence this is contract zoning. The developer and the city, well actually the developer's predecessor entered into a contract with the city 7 -8 years ago for the zoning on this property. When the plat came in, the final conditions were put up so this isn't an issue where other zoning classifications are going to be affected. It's only specific to this particular zoning classification, which is Prairie Creek. Your third criteria is that the purpose ' of the variance is not based on a desire to increase the value of the property. In essence no. The purpose of the variance is to be blunt. Is to correct any error that my client's surveyor made when he prepared the initial building permit survey. If the building permit survey had been correct, we wouldn't be here today. There's plenty of room within that lot to slide that unit forward 2 feet and still not encroach on the front. It was just pure and simple a ' surveying error. To be blunt, my clients already suffered economic hardship. This, my client had a purchase agreement. This unit was going to sell and the purchase price was close to $200,000.00. It was supposed to close on October 31st. The city obviously did not issue a Certificate of Occupancy because of this issue and my client's purchaser walked from the purchase agreement. I mean if the issue is economic harm, I assure you my clients have suffered significantly. Along the same line, one issue that a Board of Adjustments and ' 2 I Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 Appeals has to look at is, alright we established these criteria. The city Planning Commission and City Council adopt contractual zoning, whether it's a PUD or a plat. You know we expect developers to follow that and I think that's one of the economic criteria. I can assure you that my client's learned his lesson. You're not going to see Jasper Development back on anything else related to this. I think you're probably all aware that my client also owns the property immediately to the south of this and he plans to build more Prairie Creek units. The city Planning Commission a week ago Wednesday issued preliminary plat approval. Or recommendation of Council for preliminary plat approval of a 48 unit townhouse project on the west side of Powers Boulevard. My client wants a long and successful relationship with the city of Chanhassen and to be blunt, is embarrassed that it has to be here tonight bending forgiveness for an error made by it's surveyor. The last issue I think that staff raises, that the applicant for a variance not be a self created hardship. You know it's always easy to blame anybody else so I'll have to do that first and say, my client's an independent contractor. The surveyor that they used made a mistake. That's true. The city staff also made some errors when they inspected and indicated that the setbacks were okay. So in that regard, at least for the purposes of making valid findings to indicate that a variance exists, I think there's criteria that can do it but I'll sit here and admit that it's ultimately my client's fault, because I have to. It is. That... detrimental to the public welfare and the impairment of light, air and public safety. I think staff has already indicated are not an issue, and as such I don't think you would want your meeting to address something that's not an issue. Can I answer any questions or provide any additional information? Watson: Just a couple of things here. On July 8th the city issued a stop work order and then it listed a stop work order on July 11th because the developer said they were going to provide documentation. I hope we didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday and that next time we get documentation. Are not promised documentation before we take the stop work order off because you know, I mean developers are well, at the very least they're busy and they don't always get into these things as quickly or as completely as we'd like them to so. According to our records, what was done on July 8th when we issued the stop work order and what happened after July 11th? Turell: On July 8th a stop work order, I issued the stop work order... building official. Prior to that time, can I go back and explain the process. Chmiel: Steve, why don't you come up closer to that mic because this is being taped. Turell: My name is Steve Turell by the way. I'm a building inspector. I did the footing inspection on April 11, 1994. At that time only one comer of the building was staked so I checked that corner. The other corners were not staked. I told them they had to get it staked and we'd check it the next day. Pour at your own risk basically. The next day, one more 3 Q 0 I I� C I I i Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 ' was staked but however, if you take a look at the survey you'll see in the top portion there it shows 10 foot. And 10 foot from the building corner. That's the setbacks we check. We can't check the 25 feet from the porch because that's not marked. So what we're checking is the 10 foot. Those corners as surveyed were at the 10 foot locations. And at that time I requested that that building be set by a surveyor because the parameters of the building to a ' lot line are so close, for fire protection reasons and things like that. They only have 3 feet setback from their lot line. Steve Kirchman did the foundation inspection referred to on, I've got it here as May 12th at which time he said the setbacks were okay and again I believe he ' was referring to the same setback stakes as shown on the survey. Watson: The 10 foot line? ' Turell: Right. He then phoned Jasper. I've got a list here. This is from his phone records. On 5/19, 25, 27, 6/1, 8, 13, 20, 28, left messages. Requested staking. Discussed staking with Carlos, so on and so forth. And on 7/8 he requested that I place a stop work order on the building in question, which I did. Sent everybody home until this got taken care of. He's got records here on 7/11, discussed the staking. Removed stop work order based on agreement. ' And then there's another string of messages on through October 25th. Watson: Because if this building was done in July, it's taken an awful long time to get here. ' I mean if that 3 season porch was truly there in July when the stop work order occurred, that's taken an awful long time to get to this point. ' Larry Harris: What happened, as I understand it, is that after the stop work order was lifted, the survey work -was ordered. The survey, the as built was provided to the city I believe. Vl'atson: On September 20th. Larry Harris: On September 20th. ' Watson: But we have another 6 weeks there. And my question really is, what was done on that building in July. Between July 8th and July 11th, during that stop work time, how complete was the building? Larry Harris: The building, the shell was in. The 3 season porch was framed in. Typically when Jasper builds these types of townhouses, an upper end townhouse for people, they construct the shell, and I'm not sure, was this unit pre -sold Jim? Or was it sold during the process. Jim Jasper: It was sold during the process. ' 4 J Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 1 Larry Harris: Well what happens is, the unit will be framed in but the interior, the walls will ' be studded in and the interior but the interior will be left incomplete so that the purchaser can select you know where they want appliances. Where they want, and how they want rooms ' located and closets and things like that. But the actual, the exterior dimensions included the 3 season porch and were up, framed in and enclosed as of July 11th. Watson: Okay. ' Johnson: Why couldn't you have took the Skillsaw and sawn off and met city setbacks? I ' know what construction is but I'm just saying. When you have orders from city staff to comply. Lar ry Harris: Once again, on July 11th nobody knew that that porch encroached. Watson: Well but we had a stop work order so somewhere along the line someone said, hold ' it Stop. Take a look at what you've done. At this point take a look at what you've done. I mean don't finish the dam building. Take a look. Are you in compliance? Well, when did you figure out you weren't? July? , Larry Harris: September 20th when the as built came in. But on July. r nobody Watson: But during that stop work order, o y wanted to take a look at the fact that you were not in compliance or they wouldn't have said stop work? , Larry Harris: Well during the 3 day period the stop work order was in effect, Jasper Developer said we're going to have our surveyor come out. We'll have them measure every ' corner. We'll have them measure it to the property lines. Not to the lot lines but to the property lines and determine whether there's any encroachment or not. They went out to the site and walked it off and reasonably believed that it didn't encroach. As it turns out, one , corner of it encroaches by 15 inches. Watson: But there was no survey. You walked it. So was it my feet or your feet or I whoevers? Larry Harris: Somebody's feet. It wasn't my feet. ' Watson: But it wasn't surveyed either. Larry Harris: No. The only survey that existed at that point in time was the building permit ' survey. But as of the date the stop work order issued, the porch was already up and framed 5 Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 in and enclosed. It wasn't as if additional work was being done on the porch. The structure already existed at that point. Johnson: Well I feel you should have stayed at a stand still until you, it took you 2 months to get this ironed out if you're over the setbacks that you should have. I realize you're in ' construction business but being the city inspector, I have to back him up. He's going by the stakes you had out there. Watson When did you actually get a survey to tell you that this thing is 15 inches? At what point was a real survey done after the stop work order? ' Larry Harris. As far as I ... Jim submitted it to the city on September 20th. The as built. Jim Jasper: There's probably a date on the survey ... I just want to make a comment about, you ' raise the question of why didn't we stop work when the stop work order was issued, or before that time. The reason is because the building inspector said to us, he said I think you may have an encroachment here but it looks like it's not a very significant one and I'm sure not going to make you stop and tear the thing up. So there was no sense of urgency expressed to us about dealing with this encroachment. We knew we had to eventually apply for the variance. The inspector insured us at the time that if we did apply for it, he would support ' the variance. He said it was not necessary for us to stop construction at that time. He also said it was not necessary for us to remodel this so that it was in compliance. That's why there wasn't this sense of urgency in dealing with this issue. The other thing you should know is what was expressed a minute ago. We shell these units up. The exteriors are, so the exteriors are completed but the interiors of these units aren't taken any farther until they're sold. This unit was not sold. It just sat there in that stage, all framed up until a buyer came along. And so there was no further work to do on it until there was a buyer and that didn't come until sometime after the stop work order was issued. Watson Well I mean the zoning is not ... zoning is PUD. And we have lots of PUD's and we really don't need everybody within a PUD to go around cutting off a foot here and a foot there and saying, gee it's close. I'll get a survey at some point in time. So I mean that's our problem with it. Not that Prairie Creek is, or that I expect this client to go around cutting off a foot here and a foot there and expecting this guy to have, I don't think that at all. But when we give the impression that if you build it, then somehow we will excuse whatever has been done. I mean the inspection department made many attempts to discuss something with you. What did they want to discuss in about 15 phone calls in June and in May? I mean ' something needed to be discussed. What was it? R Board of Adjustments R Appeals - November 14, 1994 1 Turell: I'd like to add one thing also. The survey from the start is incorrect and what's , incorrect is it's labeled a deck, not a porch. You scale it off, it's 23 1/2 feet. So the survey was always right. It was wrong in that it was labeled a deck and not a porch. That's the ' question because a deck can encroach 5 feet, therefore it complies. That's the way I see it. So to me in effect it was known all along if you scale it off, it doesn't make it. For a deck, yes. For a porch, no. Steve Kirchman called them a number of times because of the ' complaint he received. I can't answer for the comments that they stated he made about we're not going to make you change it, and this and that. I don't know. I do know I've worked with him for over 4 years and he follows the code to the letter. Watson: And he knows us better than that. r Johnson: We don't necessarily go along with everything you say so. Turell And for the construction process, the lath was approved on August 10th. The sheetrock was not approved until September 24th so there was a lot of time in there to get thincs worked out where if something had to be changed, obviously if it's not a drywalled, it's not as big a job. If it's not stuccoed, it's not as big a job. So t t longer it was put off, the more involved it became obviously. Watson I'm just very concerned with the message we send when we say, if you build it and it's already there, then that's an excuse to leave it because well, what are we going to do, make you tear the darn thing down? I mean I'm very concerned with that message. We have an awful lot of building going on in the city and if everybody goes around making their own determination about and stepping off, that is totally unacceptable. I couldn't build a fence on my property if I stepped it off and said this is where I'm going to put the fence. The city would say, excuse me but where's your survey? You can't step off and make a determination about a property line and I wouldn't get by with it if I wanted to build a fence. So I can't imagine thinking that stepping something off would be an acceptable alternative to a survey. ' Larry Harris: The only thing I can point out though is at the time the stepping off occurred, that porch was up, framed in, roofed. Everything was done except the interior rocking. ' Watson: Well then it was even a little late to be stepping it off. Larry Harris: But once again city staff had already inspected and my client's got an ' inspection report that says the setbacks are okay. Watson: Well I've got one that has a question mark here. r 7 fl F� Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 Larry Harris: I've got one dated May 10th, which is the second one which says the setbacks are okay. Number 7, foundation inspection. Watson: I don't know what date this one is. Johnson: The date's at the bottom? Is that the 12th at the bottom? Larry Harris: Yes, May 12th. I'm sorry. Watson: May 12th. It says setbacks and there's a question mark at the top of that. Larry Harris: No, you're looking at the one that says April 12th. Watson: Okay, then that's April. I can't read the date on it. Larry Harris: Then if you look at the one, May 12th for the foundation one, that's where it indicates that the setbacks are okay. And once again, I clearly don't want to argue with the board. I'm just pointing out that my client proceeded in good faith. They had a city inspection report that said the setbacks were okay. I understand what the planning department, or what the inspection department is saying. That we thought this, the 10 foot utility easement in the rear, in that regard and the setbacks off the building block but my client doesn't know that when they look at the inspection report. They look at the inspection report that says the setbacks are okay. Johnson Well I disagree with you on the findings. Number one you says that 500 feet. I guess what I'm saying, that's the only house in the whole project which would be non- conforming and to me there's no reason why it can't conform with the rest of them. We're J ust letting one slide here and then Mr. Lundgren from another contracting outfit said gee whiz, I can run mine 2 foot over. Could you look the other way and we'll just forget about this porch too. I can't go along with that. Larry Harris: Well the issue in what your paragraph one in your criteria states is that variances that blend with pre- existing standards established in the neighborhood are acceptable and the standards established in the neighborhood are that these decks, or these porches exist. They exist a certain dimension out from the house. Johnson: But they do not let them go over the setback. That's what that refers to. Watson: It refers to any kind of a circumstance... 8 Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 (There was about a 10 to 15 minute lapse in taping of the discussion at this point.) Chmiel: ...Was that within the asking price of that home or what the value of that property basically was on that parcel? Neighbor: Well we paid what we felt was a fair value at the time with that in mind but we could have bought somewhere else in Chanhassen for a similar value with a house behind us versus a townhouse proposal. By approving the townhomes in the trees and the different shrubberies and things that were going to be in looked pretty good. Of course the things that are done now are significantly different because you had a lot more distance to work with between the deck and the lot line on the plans we saw than what they ended up having between the 4 season porch and the lot line. So those trees, they put some in but again, it doesn't look anything close to what I saw when I bought the house. But I didn't think I could change that. You know along the way. Watson: I looked at that and I wondered about that when I went out there. Our plans show decks and we got porches. I mean is it common for this to be. Neighbor. That brings his TV into my backyard. Chmiel: Well yeah, the only thing it does, Carol as you know, it brings the valuation of that property up a little bit more. And it does. Watson: But this has been an inaccurate representation which is unfortunate. Chmiel Do you know John whether or not some of those things, as to what was being proposed, as to what really went in right now? Turell ...when that's all built out now in porches, you don't have a deck, there's not enough room for trees. It scales out to much, you look from line to build, this first unit. Mike lives here. If you look at that, that scales out quite a bit more than that 25 feet they have now. So there's less room for all the trees, shrubbery that's supposed to be a buffer. Neighbor: Maybe we're getting, maybe that's not the issue here and... Chmiel: No, it's not. Neighbor: ...but it just, that's why the one foot I think matters to the people in the neighborhood more than anything is that they're kind of taking advantage of what we thought we were getting from what it finally came out to be and I know they got it approved and E L II n I 1 C' !J L Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 probably have the right to do it but I think that's why, if you talk to any of the neighbors there, they're surprised with the plans they originally saw in the neighborhood meetings and what's there. Watson: I don't blame you for being surprised. Johnson: What this gentlemen mentioned, it's more of a living quarters than a porch. I mean it's insulated and heat duct. To me it's more a part of the original structure. Turell: They're a portion of the house. It's completely open to the house. It's not detached at all. The only reason it's not shown on the survey is because it doesn't have a foundation under it as opposed to it's a 4 season room. Watson: So if it doesn't have a foundation, you don't have to put it on here? Turell: That's where it was mislabeled. It was not caught in the building department's plan review process or the planning department. Where it was caught was, and again they keep saying the setbacks were okay. They're okay as shown, 10 feet from these little boxes with an X mark. That's where we were okay there. It was brought up on 5/19 when the complaint was received that the porch was too close and that's where it started and that's when the calls followed immediately after that. So to say July 8th I believe is incorrect when the stop work was issued That was somewhat of a last resort. Watson: Well we obviously made lots of attempts to communicate. Well, do you want a motion? Johnson: Yeah, I'll take a motion. Watson: I'll make a motion to deny the 1 1/2 foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement fo r the construction of a 3 season porch, 8283 Essex Road and my reason being, in the past we have made people take down things that haven't complied and I also feel that a very strong effort was made by the building department to figure this out and I think they should have had a survey. I think if they were requested to provide a survey, they should have in fact provided a survey. Not a, I stepped it off. We've gone way past that. This is not the township of Chanhassen anymore. Johnson: I'll second it. Any more discussion? Chmiel: No. I guess I've indicated my concerns. 10 L! Board of Adjustments & Appeals - November 14, 1994 1 Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the one , and a half (1 1/2) foot variance from the twenty -five (25) foot setback requirement for the construction of a 3 season porch at 8283 Essex read based on the fact that the Board has set a , precedence of asking people to remove things that don't comply, that the building department made a very strong effort in asking for information and that a survey was not provided when asked for. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. Watson moved, Chmiel seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated October 24, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor, except Chmiel who abstained, and the motion carried. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. I Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director ' Prepared by Nann Opheim 11 gasper Development Corporation of Waeonia November 18, 1994 CITY OF CRAW Mr. John Rask City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive CL" ; :I;FfASSEid PLrV, idING DEPT. Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Case 494 -10 VAR Variance request at 8283 Essex Road John: Please accept this letter as our notice that we would like to appeal the denial of our variance request to the City Council. While we understand the Variance Board's concern about granting variances and thus creating an opportunity for future applicants to use them as precedents, we believe that it is entirely appropriate to consider a variance when the circumstances that caused the need for a variance did not occur because of an applicant's blatant disregard for the rules and when the denial of a variance will result in a significant hardship to the applicant. It appears that we may have totally misunderstood the conversations with the building inspection staff when the problem was discovered. We truly thought we understood that we had authorization to proceed with construction and that the circumstances would justify the granting of a variance. Had we not been so convinced, we would have not incurred the risk of completing the building. As to the lack of communication that delayed a resolution of this problem, there were repeated attempts on the part of Mr. Steve Kirchman and Mr. Jay Jasper to discuss the problem. Nevertheless, we were already proceeding under the apparently erroneous understanding that it was acceptable to the building department for us to complete the building without alteration. 219 E. Frontage Road, Waconia, MV 55387 Phone (612) 442 -5611 Fax (612) 442 -4934 Mr. John Rask November 18, 1994 Page 2 We hope the Council will consider the minimal impact this encroachment represents. The building in question is located adjacent to undeveloped park wetlands with no possibility of ever abutting any other residence. The objection to this variance request came from neighbors who are not affected by it. The neighbors who would be affected, that is, the residents in Prairie Creek did not object. We think Prairie Creek is an asset to the city. We are not of a mind to bend rules to accommodate our own whims. There was a mistake made and we admit to that. We simply ask that the Council permit a solution that will create no hardship on anyone. Thank you. Respectfully, JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORP OF WACONIA "- L't' L %,!f;�i�.� James E. Jasper President JEJitjs /variance 0 i CITY OF CHANHASSEN BAA DATE: 11/14/94 CC DATE: CASE #: 94 -10 VAR Fj STAFF REPORT ;z a. 0. U la PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: A one and a half (1 foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a three season porch 8283 Essex Road Jasper Development 219 E. Frontage Rd. Waconia, MN 55387 442 -5611 A^_tior. try L;h� � y.,� De, PRESENT ZONING: PUD -R, Planned Unit Development Residential ACREAGE: 4.6 acres DENSITY: 5.9 units /acre ADJACENT ZONING W Cn H AND LAND USE: N - IOP, Industrial Office Park S - PUD -R, outlot for medium density, Planned Unit Development E - PUD -R, singly family lots, Planned Unit Development W - PUD -R, outlot for high density, Planned Unit Development WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains twenty -four (24) townhome units, which is part of Lake Susan Hills Planned Unit Development. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density ♦� n / a • 1 I MIA m POD BAND HEIGH 7 t r r 0. WM PARK . c.. �. le ! �,� 11 Gl L Jasper Development November 14, 1994 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The twenty -five (25) foot setback requirement was established by the PUD agreement for Lake Susan Hills West. Section 20 -508 allows for the establishment of setbacks by PUD agreement. BACKGROUND On May 19, 1994 the city received a complaint regarding the construction of a three season porch within the required twenty -five (25) foot setback. The city required Jasper Development to stake the property so that the setback line could be verified. On July 8, 1994 the city issued a stop work order as the setback line had not been established by the contractor. The city lifted the stop work order on July 11, 1994, because the contractor agreed to provide the necessary information. An as -built was submitted on September 20, 1994 showing the three season porch encroaching into the required setback. The applicant is now requesting an after the fact variance. ANALYSIS The City Council granted final plat and site plan approval for the Prairie Creek Townhomes on April 26, 1993. The subject townhome was recently completed and is located at the north end of the development. The requested variance is from the 25' setback requirement along the north property line. Lake Susan Park abuts the subject property to the north of the proposed variance request. This section of the park is undeveloped and consists of a low wet area. The variance being requested would allow the three season porch to remain as built. I FINDINGS L The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 majority of homes within 500 feet have a deck or a three season porch. However, these structures meet the necessary setback requirements. The property has reasonable use with the existing townhome. This variance is not based on pre - existing standards. I? Jasper Development November 14, 1994 Page 3 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 purpose of this variance is to correct an existing violation. The conditions upon which this petitions is based are applicable to other properties 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 applicant is attempting to correct an existing violation. This variation appears to be based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential , of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. ' Finding: The alleged hardship is self - created as the applicant was aware of the situation prior to the construction of the three season porch. 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 granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements, because the adjoining property is park land which is low and wet. 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 increases 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 structures because there are no other homes located to the north. The porch will not increase congestion of public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety. In addition, the porch should l not impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the one and a half (1 foot variance from the twenty -five (25) foot setback requirement. The Board may wish to base thew recommendation on the following findings: r Jasper Development November 14, 1994 Page 4 1. The applicant already has a reasonable use of the property with the existing townhome. The three season porch could have been modified to comply with setback requirements. 2. This petition for a variance is based on conditions that are similar to other properties within the general area and the same zoning classification. The variance does not blend with pre- existing standards for this neighborhood. 3. The alleged hardship is self - created as the applicant was aware of the setback requirement prior to the construction of the three season porch. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from the applicant 2. Application 3. Survey of property 4. Notice of public hearing Jasper Werelopme"t Corporation of Waconia This request is for a variance from the rear setback minimum distance requirement of 25 ft. to 23.72 ft, or 1.28 ft. The abutting affected property is unimproved park land owned by the City The building affected by this encroachment is a one -story townhouse. The encroachment occurs at the corner of the townhouse. There is no encroachment on the property line. If the variance is denied, the back portion of the townhouse will have to be demolished and re - constructed wvithin the setbacks. The encroachment is not detrimental to adjacent townhouses, and has no adverse affect on ne]L,hboring properties or public safety issues. lyuA BOULE}—c VICINITY MAP Esc .=.cti; 219 E. Frontage Road, R'acouia, MN 55387 Phone (612) 442 -56I1 Fax (612) 442 -4934 P ARK M1`�'UKEE GO - WEST K K BROWNS CIRCLE +q (I L A K E s � SUSAN h0n iJ� P 0� COURT WAL CCL RT ,aS e Q � ' O RC � C THR COUP lyuA BOULE}—c VICINITY MAP Esc .=.cti; 219 E. Frontage Road, R'acouia, MN 55387 Phone (612) 442 -56I1 Fax (612) 442 -4934 FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANT 090 COULTER CHANHASSEN,1 (612) 937.1 ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEI ' APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corp of Waconia t ADDRESS 21-9 E. Frontage Road A Waconia, MN 55387 TELEPHONE Da � time T ( y } 44� -Still ELEP r 10.25.1994 11:13 P. 3 65317 APPLICATION - .- N - •.u. -• 2 19 E. Frontage Road • • uw 1. _ Comp�ehenstve Plan Amendment 1 Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Condit oval Use Permit i 12. x Variance 3. Inter) Use Permit i 1 i. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non - f nforming Use Permit 1 Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. � Sign Oermits S. _ Sign flan Review Notification Signs ti. _, Site Plan Review Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR1WAP $400 Minor SUB/Motes & Bounds 10. Subdivision OTAL FEE $ ' A Itst of it property owners within 600 feat of the It Included Ith the application. I Twenty -s x full size folded copies of the plans m $14" X 11 Reduced copy of transparency for each • NOTE - When ltiple applications are processed, the appr Escrow will be (required for other applications through the de of the property must be submitted. Ian sheet. riate fee shall be charged for each application. eioDmenl contract FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN I PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRI 10.25.1994 11.13 PRESENT ZONINb REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND SE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LA D USE DESIGNATION i REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To pe This application most be oompleted in full and be typewritten or and plans roquIreo by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Planning DepartmOnt to determine the specific ordinance and ,ranted and must be a000mpanlea oy as irrormation filing this application, you should confer with the W requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify t at I am making application for the described � ion by the City and that I am responsible for oomplying with all City requir ments with regard to this request. This A tlon should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City s uid contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (elther py of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TR , Abstract of Title or purchase agreement, or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner s also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of matertat and the progress of this application. I further understand that a ditional fees may be charged for oonsuftirp es, feasibility studies, etc. wfth an estimate prior to any authorization to pr�ceed with the study. The documents and Inf rotation I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. to - LY . 1 4- I also understand that after the approval or granting of the perrr it, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is g anted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the or4inai document returned to City Hall Records. Signatu of Appl' ant Signature of — Fee - Owner Application Recelyed on Foe Paid The applicant a =Wed, d contact staff for a copy of the staff meeting. H not a copy of the report will be mall l 11 IV _._ , o/ Reoeipt No. sport which will be avallable on Friday prior to the d to the applicant's address. P.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Survey for: JASPER HOMES \ all r Ar \ 0 / a/ / F. N Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1, Block 1, PRAIRIE CREEK, according to the recorded plot thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Doted this 24th day of October, 1994. REHDER do ASSOCIATES, INC. Alvin R. Rehder, Land Surveyor Minnesota Registration No. 13295 Rehder and Assoclotes. Inc. cmL rma Mts .wa urro SuavrrWS SMO lwbad D.*. W w. • ! No • u9.•• ib —0. • ►nar (etf) soSi 7. nip.. "' c• TOTAL P.02 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Monday, NOVEMBER 14, 1994 6:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: 1 /z Foot Variance Applicant: Jasper Development Location: 8283 Essex Road Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a variance proposed in your ' area. The applicant requests a H6 foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a three season porch on property zoned PUD and located west of Powers ' Boulevard, just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development Corporation. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform ' you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Board of Adjustments Chair will lead the public hearing ' through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. r 2. Comments are received from the public. 3. Public hearing is closed and the Board discusses project. The Board will then take action on the proposal. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact John at 937 -1900, ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department ' in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Board. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 3, , 1994. C ' Lake Susan Hills James A. Curry Byron & Gayle R. Korus Suite 200 4817 Upper Terrace 8360 West Lake Drive 7600 Parklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55435 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55435 I Florent & Catherine Soissons Jeffrey & Karen Flaunders Richard & Karen Thon 8350 West Lake Drive 8361 West Lake Drive 8351 West Lake Drive (Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patrick & Wendy Nelson Joeseph & Jane Miller Randal Smith & Carol Milbrandt 8411 Egret Ct. 18133 Cedar Avenue So. 8431 Egret Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Farmington, MN 55024 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Teri Robb Wade & Yvonne Schneider Hamid R. Hoodeh 1261 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1230 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1240 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dwight & K. Post Patricia M. Lewis Richard & Jeanne Derby 1250 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1260 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1270 Lake Susan Hills Dr. ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Patricia VanAsh Frederick & Lois York Ronald & Cynthia Tonn 8320 West Lake Ct. 8310 West Lake Ct. 8300 West Lake Ct, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Andrew & Cheryl Olson Thomas & Lynda Dotzenrod Gary & Laurie Kassen 8290 West Lake Ct. 8280 West Lake Ct. 8270 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott & Dede Montgomery James & Gail Bach David & Stacey Johnson 8260 West Lake Ct. 8250 West Lake Ct. 8241 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & Lori Domholt Craig & Laurie Burfeind Neal & Suzanne Ray West Lake Ct. 8261 West Lake CL 8281 West Lake Ct. ' 8251 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Arthur & Dorothy Taylor Ronald & Ann Kloempken Steven & Katheene A. Quinlan 8301 West Lake Ct. 8311 West Lake Ct. 1080 Lake Susan Hills Dr. i Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Thomas & Janice Dunlap Thomas & Laurie K. Nilsson Russell & Nancy Birch 1070 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1060 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1050 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 H. Lee & Judy Schmelz Christopher & Tamara Morton Donald & Mary Ketcham 8240 West Lake Ct. 8370 Lake Drive West 8380 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William & Jean Notermann Jeffrey & Anne Graupmann Kirby & Sandra Paulson 8390 Lake Drive West 8400 Lake Drive West 8410 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William & Kelly Schulte Kevin & Teri Burns Randall & Marilyn Koepsell 8420 Lake Drive West 1100 Dove Ct. 1110 Dove Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Amir & Ann Marie Abouhashem Randal & L. Fingarson Redmond Products, Inc. 1120 Dove Ct. 8371 Lake Drive West 18930 78th Street West ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Gibone Betty Y Doug & Donna Johnson g Robert & Karen Nelson 8329 Essex Road 8305 Essex Road 8330 Essex Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Floyd & Gretchen Radach Doris Larson Lloyd & Mary Leirdahl 8313 Essex Road 8324 Essex Road 8291 Essex Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Roger & Bev Severson Bob Jensen & Mary Zehrer 8321 Essex Road 8299 Essex Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 [I I MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 10, 1994 SUBJ: November 14, 1994 meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals On November 14, 1994, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will be hearing a variance ' appeal from Jasper Development regarding the Prairie Creek Townhomes. The appeal is a llh foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for a three season porch. Steve Kirchman notified Jasper Development several times regarding this problem. However, they decided to ignore the problem and construct the porch within the required setback (see attached report). Jasper Development is now requesting a variance to correct the violation. Willard Johnson, Chairperson for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, called today and requested that a representative from the Building Department be present to answer questions. 1 informed him that Steve Kirchman was out of town. Mr. Johnson asked if someone else from Public Safety could attend this meeting. The meeting is next Monday at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Would you please let me know if someone will be attending. Thank you for your assistance. c: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director I LEGEND N �- -�� — CXISIW4 MwiCHYwW 1 — IXrSIWG 51[Y+Y :C KN ' Sc°le rn fret — tluHllD t:wS IIIJE 514 S8 }TE — DuloCO ICIERHOHC fWE \ ''' u• _� °' JS eC31 S IM51 IP[LT fJ IYI(YM4 W 1 s ��T f p is m EYG«!(R/SURVI roR' NQ liLiCR O�L. SIIIF 7.0 55172 ••1 �,•• . � ono c +'J°' "' t J •� "�, $ � � p a 5 pc p . ° 6 \ . \ \ TYPICAL BUILDING DIMENSIONS p �1P e.•a r' �o \ `\ ? 8 ` f ap5• 26 C4 \ \ Ey o° 24 22 ,7 10 28 412P ° \ ��� 5� r14 19 °mss I V 6 OP•• 5 (IWZ (./ve1.d) R - . COUC'wC110H DC SubD«w0E � •. A O/ - ` ` \. _ � _ _._— 1 J �.mlcloa _ - -- . PICAL DRIVEWAY SECTION v <�C'� -_ -- ` - _- -- c � �-- 12.0' I S' unDo1 •<w Co�rac I.5J1 I,p< 11 - -- 1 P.a c«oI YnD.I 2sv I h1_l_IMIi 1:1 - -- 2" YMot Y•n coma. 2sJI IW JI 1 I L I , Rehder and Associate Iric � _ KE.vis c d (IOOx Crual .°) \~ n" n' °u k 1 JI E - - — CIVt fnIGWCCRS wrap t.w0 S H t (M'S PRA cIL r � • «4Vro.�E —g— I�nc1�0.• teal 01 ;1, J • r wr SM _ me •..Ly ry°r°I.Pn) ..I In• Yrrr..� _.. — N°p I.Pna W re '! ] 9>vJ > JJ W. P If _. vr.,.nu r C ITY ICI l I l': TYPI('ni 1 ,1PFFr cFrnnni _.._ _ -- - - -- -- Project No. 931-144.84 ShcEa "L ul