Loading...
6. Appeal decision for Bluff Line preservation Setback Variance request CITYOF -.2 i , il, CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Administrator MEMORANDUM Endorsed 1)0 1 Modiflel TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Rejected Date— 1 I FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I Date Submitted to Commission Dave Hempel, Senior Engineering Technician Date s: ted to Council 1 DATE: October 7, 1992 t ' - S ; el ; I SUBJ: Update on Appealing the Decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a 30 Foot Variance from the Setback of the Top of the Bluff Line for the Construction of a Residence, Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook, James and Rita 1 Stellick The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a single family residence to be built thirty feet I from the top of the bluff line which is consistent with the bluff ordinance, however, grading into the top of the bluff is not permitted. The Bluff Protection Ordinance requires that no grading or removal of vegetation be permitted within 20 feet from the top of the bluff. I The applicant originally requested a variance to allow a single family residence be built on top of the bluff line (refer to the staff report, Attachment #2). On September 14, 1992, the I Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed this application and unanimously recommended denial of the application (Attachment #3). 1 The applicant appealed the denial to the City Council on September 28, 1992. The City Council moved to table action on this application and recommended that the applicant modify the plans to minimize impact on the bluff. The applicant was directed to work with staff to 1 resolve issues of concern (Attachment #1). I Staff met with the applicant several times and the plan has been significantly revised. The modified plan sets the residence at a minimum distance of 30 feet from the edge of the bluff as required by ordinance. Thus, the setback variance request is no longer valid. Rather, the I Bluff Protection Ordinance provides that grading in the bluff impact zone as requested, requires an earth work permit. Since the amount of dirt to be moved is less than 1,000 cubic yards, staff can issue the permit administratively. 1 In exchange for relocating the home, the applicant is proposing to mass grade the bluff impact zone and portions of the bluff located south of the home to create a view from upper 1 Is t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Don Ashworth October 7, 1992 Page 2 1 and lower levels of the home. Staff finds that we can support the concept but not the large volume of grading that is being requested in this sensitive area. We believe the primary ' problem should focus on the location of a small knoll that rises up above the rest of the bluff line and significantly blocks the applicant's view. Staff is willing to accept the grading of this knoll which is located in the bluff impact zone. However, no grading should be allowed to occur outside the area of the knoll in a manner that is currently being proposed by the applicant. Should the applicant's view remain unacceptable, the ordinance does permit the thinning of trees necessary to provide a reasonable view. ' The proposal submitted will require filling the front side of the house with 2 to 10 feet of material. The proposal also indicates excessive grading south of the garage and house. Staff 1 has concerns with the modified grading plan with regards to point discharge of runoff over the bluff and diverting runoff onto the adjacent parcel to the west. Should the application be approved, at a minimum, these issues will need to be resolved such as adjusting the grades around the house to maintain a sheet flow and the predeveloped drainage pattern. In addition, staff may impose additional conditions at the time a building permit is applied for to address 1 drainage issues from house and driveway improvements. The appropriate erosion control measures should be employed prior to any grading activities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION With the City Council's approval, staff will authorize an earth work permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading in the bluff impact zone shall be limited to the area of the knoll located above ' the 906' elevation. No other grading shall be permitted in this area. Plans shall be revised accordingly. 1 2. Grading plans shall be designed to ensure sheet drainage along the bluff. 3. Only selective tree removal in the bluff area needed to provide a view shall be allowed. 4. Type III erosion control shall be installed and maintained. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. City Council minutes dated September 28, 1992. 2. Staff report. 3. Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes dated September 14, 1992. 4. Plan showing grading limits proposed by staff and applicant - 20' bluff impact zone. 5. Plans dated October 8, 1992. 1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources permits, if any. 1 • 5. No additional variances will be granted in the future. 6. Park and trail fees are due at the time of building permit approval. 1 7. An escrow of S135.00 is required for recording of the final plat and attorney fees. All voted in favor, except Councilman Workman who was not present during the voting, and the motion carried. 1 APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST. 9981 DEERBROOK DRIVE, JAMES STELLICK. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: The applicant is proposing to build a single family residence on a property that is within the bluff area. The ordinance requires a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The applicant is proposing to build with a zero setback to the bluff. The location where the applicant is proposing to place the residence will destroy a large number of trees eventually that will cause erosion and it would defeat the purpose of the bluff protection ordinance. There are other designs the applicant could pursue. We can't find a hardship. We are recommending denial of this application. On September 14th the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed this application and they denied it unanimously. Councilman Wing was strongly opposed to approving this variance and recommended that it be carried in front of the Council and so it is in front of you today. Again, we are recommending denial of this. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Mr. Stellick here? James Stellick: Good evening Mr. Mayor. Council people. I'd like to spend a few minutes to go through a summary. This is the first time I've seen this. I was not privy to the report to the city as an applicant apparently. I don't feel that that line is correct but I'd like to go ahead with the summary anyway. This is approximately 11 1/2 acre site. The front portion of the lot abutting the street amounts to. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Stellick? Maybe I could ask you, you're indicating that that line is not correct. Where would that line necessarily be? James Stellick: I instructed the surveyor to set the house back 30 feet from the bluff lot, the relevant line. The surveyor added the decks. If that was not properly set, then it's extremely close. The decks were then put in by the surveyor. I don't understand this line and. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is the illustration that we received from the applicant that was shown at the Board of Adjustment meeting. I asked Sharmin to put the red lines on there so it was easier to see but nothing has changed since it was last reviewed. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Stellick, as you indicated just previously, you're still looking at complying with that 30 foot setback from the bluff line? 36 1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 James Stellick: The house, as it sits, is 30 feet back from the bluff line. 1 , The decks are not. The decks approach the bluff line and they can be cut back. The Planning Department informed us that the proposed house must be set forward on the lot so that no portion of the house encroaches within and no excavation occurs within 30 feet of the bluff crest line. If this becomes a permanent order, the walkout rambler home we wish to build would have absolutely no view to the bluff area. Obviously the views are a major attraction of this piece of land. It's also the reason for the parcel's value as a home building site. 1 There are essentially two similar lots in that development. The adjacent lot on the left side there and this lot. They do have bluff views. They also have a steep bluff line that's not a shallow slope. Without a variance the property cannot be put to use reasonable and appropriate for the Deerbrook area. Almost every, if not every home in the subdivision is currently a walkout. We've been told that the city is not dictating the type of home we can build, yet if we build according to the bluff ordinance, our home will have a hill behind it which will totally obscure any views from the house. Admittedly, if we build a 2 or 3 story home, there's a possibility we could enjoy the views available on our land. However, part of the justification for a bluff ordinance is to maintain the pristine appearance of the bluffs. A 2 or 3 story home would certainly seem to be more obtrusive than a rambler which would more readily blend in with the environment. Unfortunately the reason we're leaving a two story home in Eden Prairie is because our home with all of it's steps is ' impractical as we take care of a parent who is paralyzed. Only a rambler type home will accommodate our future needs. Planning staff and /or the Board of Adjustments seem to have three concerns. First there's a concern that if we place the home where we desire, trees will have to be removed. Of the total site, approximately 9 to 9 1/2 acres are solid trees going down the bluff. The amount of trees that we would remove would consist of less than 1% of the treed site. We'd be more than happy to replace trees. We're going to try to transplant trees that have to be taken out to put to the front of the site which doesn't have any trees. The second concern has to do with erosion. We admit 1 this is a valid concern. We don't want erosion to occur any more than the city. However, if this is the Counicl's concern, there's a better way to address this issue. By assuring that the home is built with adequate and appropriate drainage paths, erosion can be avoided. We would be willing to hire consulting engineers, whatever would be necessary to avoid erosion. That would be the last thing in the world we would want on our site. Thirdly, the members of the Board of Adjustments expressed an unwillingness to grant a variance since this is a ' newer ordinance. In our opinion, this is not a valid justification for denying a meritorious variance request. The Board also stated that we had notice of the ordinance when we submitted our Purchase Agreement. We don't deny this fact. ' We did. However, we have a reasonable belief that we qualified for a variance due to the nature of the land and the appearance and location of the other homes in that development. It is our opinion that this site cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variation due to the unique nature of the land. Granting of a variance will result in alleviating a hardship and will further result in ensuring the home on this lot will blend in with the neighboring houses and the environment. In other words, granting this variance request ' won't alter the essential characteristics of the area. In fact, an upper bracket 6,000 square foot brick home will probably help increase the area property values. A denial of this request will undoubtedly mean the market value of this property will decrease markedly. If this happens, there's a high 1 probability that a home of far lesser value will be constructed. This should be 1 37 1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 a real concern for the people of Chanhassen. As we all know, the taxes are directly related to property values. If what you were trying to accomplish by this ordinance is conservation and beauty of the bluff area as well as the purity of the water, you can accomplish this by allowing a walkout rambler with proper drainage to prevent erosion. We respectfully request that you reconsider the decision of the Board of Adjustments and grant our request for a variance. We'd be more than happy to work with city officials to accomplish our objectives in a manner that will benefit everyone. That's the end of the statement. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any specific questions anyone may have to ask Mr. Stellick? Michael. Councilman Mason: Just one. How close are the railroad tracks to where you , want to build right now Mr. Stellick? James Stellick: The railroad tracks would be at the, I believe the survey, I 1 don't know what package you have but there is a survey. It's the south easterly line of the site are the railroad tracks. Paul Krauss: The parcel borders on the railway. Councilman Mason: Right, right. So about how many feet would that be from the home? James Stellick: Oh, 800 or 1,000. We're trying to get a variance so we have a wonderful view of a gravel pit is what we're trying to do here. 1 Councilman Mason: That's all I have for now. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thomas. Councilman Workman: Well you know I too, granted the rails aren't on that track anymore. With that running directly by, what are the exact setback requests? What are the exact setback requests into the setback? 10 feet? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Zero setback from the top of the bluff line. 1 Counciliman Workman: I know, but what are they requesting? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Zero. No setback. They want to build right on the bluff. 1 Councilman Right on the line? Sharmin Al - Jaff: Correct. James Stellick: The house is set 30 feet back. The decks encroach the bluff line. Councilman Workman: I'm asking, how far are the decks into the setback? Zero? 1 Paul Krauss: They're on the edge of the bluff. 38 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. This is the edge The of the bluff. he ordinance requires a 30 foot setback. They're right on it. Councilman Workman: Oh. So they're within 30 feet? They're 30 feet too far in? II t Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. 11 Councilman Workman: Because you have to be 30 foot back? James Stellick: ..on the setback line there is that the scale that was picked up was picked up from the adjacent lot. There is a scale on the survey itself which is a different scale than that. So I believe you picked that up from the adjacent lot. ' Councilman Workman: Is there some question here as to whether this is an accurate line or not now? Mrs. Stellick: Yes. Councilman Workman: I mean would this be, we can't resolve that tonight. Paul Krauss: All we can do, unless their surveyor's willing to stake the line, we've walked the site several times. We were out there again this evening. I mean it's clear from the illustration. It's very obvious when you're out there where the bluff line starts. You walk through the trees a ways and then it starts running down the hill. The bluff line ordinance does establish an official elevation. Sharmin's tried to relate that official elevation to it. It's pretty clear from the illustrations that we were provided by the applicant that the decks are on the edge of the bluff line. Maybe they're 5 feet back one way or the other, it's hard to tell with the information we've been given but the decks are on the bluff line. ' Councilman Mason: How about, the applicant is saying that the house is 30 feet back. Let's forget about the decks for a second. The applicant I believe is ' saying the house is 30 feet back. And you folks are in disagreement with that right now? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. This is the 30 foot setback line and it's clearly in the middle of the house. It runs through the house. James Stellick: Sharmin, do you have the full scale survey? Councilman Mason: Maybe while we're working that out, if we can come to an agreement that the house is 30 feet back, can you live without the decks? I James Stellick: Yes. I'd be happy to move the house further back. Councilman Mason: Because personally for me the issue is, I think that obviously that 30 foot setback was put there for a reason. And if you can move the house back or if your scale, you know if we have an inaccurate scale here or something, I think that's great. But we can't have things right up against the bluff line but it seems to me like we have to get this scale cleared up. 39 11 1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 James Stellick: If I might add. The criteria for a variance as stated, the criteria includes, it says that the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. The intent of the provision is not to allow proliferation of variances but to recognize that in the developed neighborhoods, pre- existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre - existing standards without departing from them, meet this criteria. The adjacent house is approximately the same distance back. It has a deck. It has more than one deck. It has a pool that is closer to the bluff. My point is that we do conform with the variance requirements. To be granted a variance. To have that. I mean we could certainly cut back the decks. We could slide the house further to the north. That creates a different problem. We're trying to solve a problem by putting it that far out, as strange as it sounds. If you slide the house further back, you have to excavate more if you're going to have a walkout house. Again, a walkout house is the preponderance style of house in that neighborhood. It is not a unique house. It's the way they all are. The fact that it is a sharp bluff creates problems. If it was a gently sloping bluff, you wouldn't have to get so close. But if you move this house back, as a walkout, you'll have to gouge out a lot of earth and at the Planning meeting they suggested that that would not be approved either. So this again, by moving it closer, we remove less earth, less disruption. Clearly, the reason somebody would buy a house like this would be for the view. And if one is not allowed the view, or to build the standard kind of a home for that site, the value's not there. And 11 this site, this plat was approved many years ago. Clearly with the intent of marketing those homes. Or those lots as view lots. And the bluff ordinance was passed I believe in October of '91. After two homes were built or were approved that do not meet the bluff ordinance. They encroach on the bluff and we're asking to conform with what's already there. Unfortunately we need to seek a variance to achieve that where the others didn't. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, was that other house constructed prior to the ordinance? 11 Paul Krauss: The other house was constructed prior to the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: This is the one that we had looked at at one time where they had concerns about erosion occurring now? Paul Krauss: The Bruce Bren home? I'm not sure. It may have been. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And the others that we had also looked at who were having quite a bit of erosion of that bluff line and coming closer to the buildings. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the sites that you and I visited that had the severe erosion were in a different area of the bluff. It's typical of what happens there. But the home next door was built, was given a building permit prior to the adoption of the ordinance. We did require the builder to go back in and we had them revise the plan so instead of pushing the pool out over the bluff, they brought it back in but it was done prior to the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to make that clarification, and that's the reason. Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: I don't think Mr. Stellick wants to hear from me and for $100.00 I'll keep quiet. I'm on record with the variance, Board of variance 1 40 1 '1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 II denying this and I became frustrated because the loss of trees isn't the issue. II The type of house isn't the issue we're discussing. The view isn't the issue we're discussing. I mean the view, everybody wanted the view and it was the view that really prompted the ordinance in the first place because we're going up and over and down into the basin and destroying the ridge line. So the I l ordinance was hard fought with those issues at heart so I just drew the line and said, this is an ordinance that I believe in. It's an ordinance I think we ought to enforce and I don't care what type of house Mr. Stellick builds or what II trees, what he might choose to do with the trees on his property. What kind of a view he can derive from this but what I didn't feel comfortable was giving the variance against our new bluff line ordinance which I really believe in. I II think it's in the best interest of the city long term and whatever happens out there just has to be 30 feet back from the bluff so I thought it was really a simple issue and maybe I'm over simplifying it. I apologize if I am but I's on record as opposing it and I'm going to stand on that. II Mayor Chmiel: Tom. II Councilman Workman: Sure, take the easy way out. When I got the fuzzies for this ordinance, I was standing at Bluff Creek Golf Course looking down into nature. And I now know why I'm so frustrated by this thing is because not all II bluffs are created equal. Can we add that to the ordinance? This thing is looking over a bed of granite which was a railroad track which will probably be a light rail track, or a bike trail in the meantime, or something. And so when I think of this bluff line ordinance, and I can hear Paul's teeth grinding, is I II had that view of that. Everytime we've had somebody contest this ordinance it's always been something that looks a little different. It's always been kind of a 1 different situation which is why we have variances, but I imagined all the, as we took the tour of all the endangered plant life and the steep ridges and I ' everything else. To me this lot is a little bit different. How far do we let the decks go? I don't know. I'm not going to design their home like a previous Council member may have but it's overlooking this rail line which is, granted II it's sort of a bluff but then you go down and then there's the tracks and presumably there'd be another bluff. I don't know if tracks break it up but to me it's overlooking something that's rather obtrusive. But I mean their lot 1 goes down to the tracks. I don't know. That's why I've had such a tough time with this. And for the right of a property owner in this instance, I'm sympathetic. It's easy for me to be sympathetic to what they're trying to I accomplish. Whether it makes sense or doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to help them design their home. It seems like a magnificant structure. So I wonder how much this is going to disturb and I know that's a compromise on the ordinance but, do you get my drift? I'm not thinking very clearly perhaps but II it's, I've just been frustrated with it because I've never seen that pristine bluff that I got so concerned about when I decided that I thought we needed the bluff line ordinance. II Mayor Chmiel: Often times we don't know what's going to happen with that particular bluff line. The amount of erosion that I've seen. That Paul and I have gone out to several different residences last year trying to get some 1 appropriations to assist them so the erosion doesn't continue, which we have not found any dollars that are likely to be found anywhere. And their concerns are there, yet I don't want to see Mr. Stellick get in that same position where this II could happen to him as well. With that erosion. I'm not sure that it can't II 41 II City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 happen. So 30 foot setback in my estimation is something that we have established to make sure that providing of that respective owner of that property, the rights to be there without having anything to worry about and that's why that 30 foot setback is there. Councilman Workman: Well, I'll let his engineer worry about that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well that's true. Now, the thing I've heard also is that potentially there could be something different within the scales that were used to come up with those calculations. If there can be some verification to that by his engineer, or civil or whoever you're having doing this, then we could look at that part of it. Do you have? Paul Krauss: We did recheck the illustration that was up there using the full sized print with the scale that was provided and the line comes out to be in about the same place. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Have we had, have you had a surveyor stake out to where the house may be within that lot? James Stellick: I'm sorry, I apparently wasn't clear. On the plat they first did a schematic of the house and then reduced it down to the proper scale. A little cutout and then they literally stick it on the site. The instruction was to stick it 30 feet away from the bluff edge. Mayor Chmiel: But the decks are going to prevail into that setback requirement. 1 James Stellick: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: But yet you still have an alternative to move that back some. , James Stellick: The house or the decks? Mayor Chmiel: Right. The house back some so you could still accommodate those decks and still be within the 30 foot setback requirement from the ordinance. But as you said, there maybe some additional costs you're going to have to incur. James Stellick: I'm not so concerned about the cost. It's the fact that the Planning Director indicated that that's a different animal. You also have to get a variance for your ground work. Your excavation. And that the Planning Department would not accept moving the house further away from the bluff because in a walkout style home, you have to excavate to the bluff and that created a different kind of problem. Again, I'd be happy to move it back. Mayor Chmiel: Paul. , Paul Krauss: You're not allowed to cut trees within the bluff impact zone which is 20 feet from the top of the hill. You're not supposed to do any grading in there. The applicant is referring to, I think is basically saying, well if I can't put the house on the bluff, I'll move it 30 feet back and then I'll cut the bluff down and then...the basement. You can do all the grading you want to do outside of that area. You can trim trees to get a view of the bluff line 1 42 1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 1 from the home. But you can't, the way the ordinance is set up, you can't work in that bluff impact area. It was intended not to allow mass grading of the edge of the bluff line. James Stellick: My point is that you cannot then build a walkout style home which I believe every single house in that development is. You cannot build it on that site period. And the intent it seems to me of a variance is to set forth conditions whereby you vary. We meet those variance requirements in that ' we are compatible with existing homes in the neighborhood which it says is the test you have to meet. If the Planning Department stands on that issue, or the Council does, effectively only a two story house can be built on that site away . from the bluff. It would be I believe the first two story house in the neighborhood and it does present a hardship for us, for the existing owners. We can't build there anymore. And again, we can't build with that which is compatible with the neighborhood. Councilman Mason: I wonder if we could see if Mr. Stellick and either Paul or the Planning Commission can work something out with the grading. I have a real ' tough time allowing something within 30 feet of that bluff line. But if we can push the house back with a minimum amount of damage, maybe that's something. Has that been looked at at all? I mean have any plans been submitted or anything like that? I mean is that out of the question? ' Paul Krauss: We suggested that that be done in the recommendations. James Stellick: I believe the recommendation was a two story home. Not a walkout further back. ' Paul Krauss: Well, we have no intent to recommend a specific style. It was simply, I mean you could take that plan and basically put it back the distance and then figure out the grading. We're not here to dictate what type of home goes on there. ' James Stellick: Again, how do you build a walkout style home if you cannot disrupt the bluff and you move it 30 feet back? You literally would dig a hole 1 for your backyard. I don't understand how you do that. Paul Krauss: Well again, I mean we have a number of lots in the city that ' cannot accept walkout homes. Walkout basements. That's a fact. You even saw on the recent Lundgren submittal where there were some lots that were going to be prohibited against it because the grading was too severe. I've also seen walkout homes made through grading where you can basically mound up dirt and ' excavate it out. I mean there's ways of doing things. I'm not sure if these things have been explored or not. Again, I don't think it's my staff's job to design this for the applicant. We've suggested how it could be done. We're willing to work with their engineer or architect to see if they're got a modification that would do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think it's time to call the question. Councilman Workman: I'd move to table this until further review rather than risk granting or not granting. 1 1 43 1 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: To work it out with staff to see if it can be reached and construction can be done according to Mr. Stellick's needs as well. But yet still making sure we're meeting our qualifications. Okay. Councilman Workman: It sounds like the Stellicks are agreeable to that. II 1 James Stellick: Could you tell me a little bit what the timing of that would be. Mayor Chmiel: I think it could be back here within 2 weeks. James Stellick: Okay. The Council meets every 2 weeks? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Our next Council meeting which will be the second Monday of the month. , Don Ashworth: The 12th. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. , Paul Krauss: We would be able to adhere to that deadline as long as we were able to reach some conclusion before Monday or Tuesday of next week. , James Stellick: I don't know what's being asked of me frankly. Even if that site is correct, I believe though we still have a problem but we'll be happy to try and work through that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I'll second it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hopefully what I'd like you to do is contact Paul to see exactly what you have to do so you're just not stumbling around too and coming in with something that's not going to meet what they're talking about as well. James Stellick: Sure. And can I also get a copy of what was presented to the Council for this meeting. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see why not. Sure. 1 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the appeal of the Variance Request 192 -11 for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REZONING OF 20.96 ACRES FROM BG. BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT TO PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE TARGET DEVELOPMENT ON 10+ ACRES; AND AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING OF THE ENTIRE SITE. RYAN CONSTRUCTION. 1 Kate Aanenson: What I'd like to do at this time is just go ahead and present the update from the last time we met on this, which was conceptual approval. It went to the Planning Commission on September 16th. Lengthy discussion, about 2 as 1 1 CITYOF 7 1 f -- i CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 I Action by City Administiatd Endorsed ✓ 2) 4 I Modii!cd MEMORANDUM Rejected- , Dite �' I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Submitted to Commission Date Submitted to Cotncj( I FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I 9 DATE: September 22, 1992 1 SUBJ: Appeal the Decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a 30 Foot Variance from the Setback of the Top of the Bluff Line, for the Construction of 1 a Residence, Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook, James and Rita Stellick I The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a single family residence be built on the top of the bluff line (refer to the staff report, Attachment #2). The Bluff Protection Ordinance requires a minimum structure setback of 30 feet from the top of the bluff line. Staff recommended that I the variance be denied. The parcel is a large one, offering many other potential building sites. We recommended that the Bluff Protection Ordinance be upheld. 1 On September 14, 1992, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed this application and unanimously recommended denial of the application. Councilman Wing stated that he recommended denial of the application because not too long ago the City Council worked hard 1 to adopt an ordinance that would protect the bluff line, Bluff Creek, and the Minnesota River and to approve this application would be to deny the Bluff Ordinance. Chairman Johnson and member Watson agreed with Councilman Wing's statement and denied the variance application 1 (Attachment #1). 1 The applicant is appealing the denial to the City Council. Staff continues to recommend denial of this variance application. 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Board of Adjustment minutes dated September 14, 1992. 1 2. Staff report dated September 14, 1992. , � I / t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 111 1 � ..� 1 T Y O F BOA DATE DATE: 9/ 14 / 9 2 II \ \� CIIAHAI CC DATE: -� - CASE #: 92 -11 VAR 11 By: Al -Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A 30 -Foot Variance from the Setback of the Top of the Bluff Line, for the Construction of a Residence 1- Z LOCATION: South of Deerbrook Drive, Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook Q V APPLICANT: James and Rita Stellick 10432 Purdey Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Cl. Q PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ACREAGE: Approximately 11 Acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR; Single family S - A2; Single family and Bluff E - RR; Single family W - RR; Single family WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. 0 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site terrain slopes to the south. The W property contains mature trees. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1 Stellick Variance #92 -11 September 14, 1992 Page 2 ' BACKGROUND On October 24, 1991, the city adopted the Bluff Protection ' Ordinance (Attachment #2). City staff attempted to contact all property owners affected by the ordinance. Letters were sent notifying property owners of meetings and public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff also visited areas when residents were concerned that their property may be impacted by the new ordinance (Attachment #3). The subject property was on this list, and had been notified of the ordinance and its progress since the beginning of the process. ' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20- 1401(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires all structures to maintain a minimum of a 30 -foot setback from the top of the ' bluff. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 30 -foot variance from the setback of the top of the bluff line to construct a single family residence. The applicant is proposing to build the residence to the edge of ' the top of the bluff. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 30 -foot setback from the top of the bluff. Furthermore, building the home where the applicant is proposing to place it will ' result in the loss of a large number of trees ranging anywhere between 4" and 18" caliper. This vegetation protects the bluff and helps prevent it from eroding. ' The applicant was made aware of the city's ordinance to preserve the bluff area; however, he wishes to build a walkout basement that overlooks the bluff. The owner has other options as far as house ' location goes; which would not impact the bluff line. A large area of the front yard is flat and void of trees where a home could easily be placed. Staff does not favor any encroachment into the ' bluff beyond the crest. Consequently, we are recommending that the design be changed by setting the residence 30 feet from the top of the bluff. A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or City Council only if the following criteria are met: 1 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 (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a 1 Stellick Variance #92 -11 September 14, 1992 Page 3 proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed 1 neighborhoods pre- existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing from them meet this criteria. ' * The ordinance calls for undue hardship which means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. In this case, the subject property has a large buildable area (approximately 11 acres) as shown in the site plan. 11 The residence could easily be shifted 30 feet to the north and maintain the required setbacks. We surveyed the area within 500 feet and discovered that there were some homes that encroached 50 feet into the required setback. Those homes where built prior to the adoption of the bluff ordinance. Furthermore, the ordinance was adopted to prevent such actions from taking place. ' b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. * The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. * The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire ' to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self- created 1 hardship. * The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self- created ' hardship. As staff mentioned previously, the applicant could move the residence 30 feet to the north and eliminate the variance. The proposed location will result in destroying a large number of trees which will impact the bluff by causing erosion. 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. * Granting of the variance will result in allowing a home be built within the bluff setback area, which will cause 1 1 Stellick Variance #92 -11 September 14, 1992 Page 4 the loss of a large number of trees. It also has a high potential for bluffline erosion due to disturbance from ' construction and changed drainage patterns. Staff is recommending the location of the residence be setback 30 feet from the top of the bluff. ' f. That 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. ' * 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. ' Staff believes that the owner could-build the residence in a different location on the site without impacting the bluff. On this basis, staff is recommending denial of this application. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies Variance Request #92- 11 for a 30 -foot bluff setback." ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Letter from applicant. 2. Bluff Protection Ordinance. ' 3. 4. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated July 17, 1991. Property owners notified of variance. 5. Site Plan. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT TO THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR JAMES P. & RITA K. STELLICK 1 1) Completed Application Form - Attached 1 2) Application Fee - Attached 3) Evidence of ownership - Purchase Agreement attached 4) Location map - Attached 5) List of property owners within 500 feet - Attached 6) Property adjacent to a lake - Not applicable 1 7) Plot plan - Attached 8) Written description of variance requested - We request a variance from Ordinance No. 152 which amends Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, The Zoning Ordinance. Section 20 -1401 cites a structure setback from a "bluff impact zone" of 30 feet. The proposed house will be a one -story building with an attached garage, and it will have a full walkout level with a garage under with its own separate driveway. The attached plot plan indicates a setback of Tess than 30 feet for parts of the proposed structure. Additionally, the site excavation for the house and garage would appear to be in violation of Sections 20- 1404 and 20 -1405, relating to topographic alterations and driveways. 9) Written justification - a) We feel that the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. Walk -out type homes 1 are becoming more popular, particularly where there is a view. This type of home could not be constructed without a variance from the existing zoning ordinance. The lower level garage may be somewhat unusual, however we feel it is necessary in this case, and has been designed into the home, because we are presently caring for a mother who is partially paralyzed. In order to properly care for her, she needs to have access and a living area on one level, which would be the walkout level. A two -story home would not work. We anticipate caring for one or more other immediate family members should the need arise in the future. Additionally, the home adjacent to the west, on lot #7, is a large and attractive home that has a very similar site with a large lot and a view to the south. This is also a walkout style home, which needed a similar variance. b) The above conditions would appear to not be applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. 1 c) The purpose of the variation is to allow for a home that will work for us, rather than having to do with increased value or income potential. d) Walkout style homes for sites where there is a view would appear to be somewhat common, rather than a situation unique to this site. e) The proposed home should be an enhancement to the public welfare, and should be well suited to the land and improvements in the neighborhood, rather than detrimental to either. f) The overall site is 11.7 acres, upon which there will be one house of approximately 6000 square feet. Of 1 the total site, there are approximately 9 acres of land in front of the home, looking down the bluff to the south. 1 1 i CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1 ORDINANCE NO. 152 ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE II The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Section 20 -1, Definitions is hereby amended by ' adding the following: Bluff. Bluff means a natural topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics: ' (1) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff; and 1 (2) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 1 30% or greater. (3) An area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Bluff Impact Zone. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. Vegetation Clearing. Vegetation clearing means the complete removal of existing vegetative cover in such a manner as to expose the soil to air and water erosion. Toe of the bluff. Toe of the bluff means the point on a bluff ' where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from flatter to steeper slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the toe of the bluff shall be determined to be the lower end of a 50 foot segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 %. Top of the bluff. Top of the bluff means the point on a bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly .identifiable break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the top of the bluff shall be determined to be the upper end of a 50 foot segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 %. • • 1 1 1 • Section 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article XXVIII to read as follows: ARTICLE XXVIII. pLUFF PROTECTION Section 20 -1400. Statement of Intent. Development, excavation, clearcutting 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 character 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. Section 20 -1401. Structure Setbacks. (1) Structures, including but not limited to decks and accessory buildings, except stairways 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. 1 (2) 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 30 foot setback. 1 Section 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 earth work 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) Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots may not exceed thirty -two (32) square feet in area. Landings larger than thirty -two (32) square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational properties, and planned unit developments. 1 2 1 1 11 (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. 1 (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots. 1 (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. Section 20 -1403. Removal or Alteration of Vegetation. 1 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 1 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 clear cutting be permitted. City staff will work with the property owner to develop a mean of creating a view while minimizing disturbance to the bluff impact zone. Section 20 -1404. Topographic Alterations /Grading and Filling. 9 ' An earth work permit will be required for the movement of more than 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. Section 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 exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause adverse impacts. 1 3 • 1 1 • Section 20 -1406. Official Map. 1 This Article shall apply only to the bluff impact zones located on the official bluff impact zone map dated June 1, 1991, as amended from time to time, which is incorporated herein by reference and which is on file with the City Clerk. The official map may be administratively changed by the Planning Director based 'upon the submittal of topographic survey data prepared by a registered engineer or surveyor. Section 20 -1407. Reconstruction of Lawful Nonconforming Structures. Lawful nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed may be reconstructed provided that it is reconstructed within one year following its damage or destruction and provided the nonconformity is not materially increased. Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon 1 its passage and publication. PASS D AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this rt� day of c..t , 1991. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, lerk /Manager Donald J hmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 24, 1991.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 CIT' OF 1 � 1 r CHANHASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - --..'7 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 � July 17, 1991 II ' Dear Property Owner: l The City is considering adopting a bluff preservation ordinance. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1991. After receiving comments from the public, action was tabled until some of the concerns could be addressed and until a letter II could be sent to .affected property owners explaining the bluff preservation ordinance. I The City has been experiencing destruction of bluff areas as a result of clearcutting, erosion and construction within the bluff. The intent of the bluff preservation ordinance is to protect Chanhassen's sensitive and valuable bluff area, specifically along II Bluff Creek, north of Hwy. 212 and along the Minnesota River Valley and its tributaries. The bluff preservation ordinance prevents clearcutting within the bluff, creates a structure setback and II maintains existing drainage patterns. An official map will designate areas protected by the ordinance. A draft map is available for review at City Hall. I At the June 19 meeting, the first concern with the bluff preservation ordinance was what it would do to existing structures. The ordinance accommodates existing structures and existing lots of I record. All structures which are within the bluff setback zone are grandfathered in as conforming structures and are also provided with a decreased bluff setback for future additions. 1 A second concern was the impact of the ordinance on potential subdivisions of existing large parcels. The bluff protection area is contained within the A2 and BF Districts. The A2 District, which is where the existing homes are located, regulates the subdivision of property and limits new subdivisions to 1 unit per 10 acre density with a minimum of 1 acre of buildable area with a I slope of 25% or less. Therefore, the existing ordinance requires that you must have at least 20 acres' and acreage outside of the bluff before you can subdivide. The bluff preservation ordinance II should not further restrict the creation of new lots. II II 1 July 17, 1991 Il Page 2 Attached is a copy of the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission 1 will again be reviewing the ordinance on Wednesday, August 21, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 1 Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen • Senior Planner 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ ,__.., nal 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i`;��' PIONEER CIRCLE r il li bil l o d I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND _ APPEALS _ a0 Monday, SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 - 6:30 City Hall Council Chambers / / 690 Coulter Drive I 1 !, < Project: Bluff Line Preservation ,/,, , 1 Setback Variance - 1 Applicant: James and Rita Stellick Location: 9981 Deerbrook Drive - - gy p s D.Z. Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook 1 J0 is F 9 v ■ it S v 5 X69 v ��4 E /� .1' II nvD 1 . Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a variance proposed in your area. The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling within the bluff line preservation setback. 1 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 1 project. During the meeting, the Board of Adjustments Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 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. 1 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 Sharmin at 937 -1900. If you I 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. 1 Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 3, 1992. , 1 t o .' u fi .rte :tee - . 1 KEVIN BUESGENS 1ST AMERICAN BANK METRO PAUL TAUNTON 9940 DEERBROOK DRIVE 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET 10125 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE i CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SO. ST. PAUL MN 55075 #310 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 GERALD & STELLA BERTSCH JEFFREY & BARBARA MICHELL MICHAEL A BOYLAN 1 8556 IRWIN ROAD 11887 WATERFORD ROAD 17700 SOUTHRIDGE COURT BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 MINNETONKA MN 55345 1 JOHN S. POULOS DENNIS & CATHERINE BARTHOLOW 1 6560 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH 9841 DEERBROOK DRIVE #660 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55345 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • FROM.: ADMI N . . .. _ `__ •.1 - _ . 612 942 9419 APR 23, 1992 3: 50PM P 1 : � r • I J , ,,It.. q4 ' 4 ) 1 I. i b;i..44 NJ 1 III t� l it fi 1?.. \. iu , 4 P 1,..N, ij • — ,,..`ei " ate a " q '' j 1 $ i J;:./' M /' " ' V � / y U qJ I / Le.., / * . i- , ,, 4 ., •0 4. • k t /t er � ✓ a' � , t , . _ ., - ' • 4.,,..,,;., .,,,,..•..,. 4 1 v I , No. - . ' .:...,4"..,.. / ' , . . ... • . %.• •• , ''' 1 , j ..5 .. 1 r •,. - , '� :-;,••:' t• `14 , . .. .' .1:••' . • ':c u' ..1._ �S .. � r �C t \ e • . i = : i- !.' S STY i' ":..:M' . ..j /+ ti.. K • •�. + _ V , . ,i'� . ` .SCI 'i ' J • , . 111 \ ' . . �i ' E, 3 . ��'{ /.'' / W. . .. ` •1 •tjl q e l /i . „.•,-. 1:1 a 4:... ...'' ti i ' Til g;.:i ". A .Z .: - , .."'" CI "W•• • t 2. 1 � i at r __, ^ _ -) m J.n ' �' iE Y�! — — Lem* "'tit., ' 1i • 4 / ,) 1 j >Zz: a4 • IIIIIMINOM11.11.111111111.1111.1 NM tK teal :,/7177 "g Par '1 • ra*w «Wwrn All 1 1 4.... . .tooapaffsa % PD V to7— V al I $ u� � - k-_- J r I I ' t b /k- Si • '�' • I ar, I S 1 11 CO • t ' �., 1 Qj w I II 1 I i / a Bit r L) v 2 a I d o a €: r C4 _a -ii 1 _� s / - - �� - v a ��. / 1 ���� - ---. r' ��� w ! \ �`� Ate` • \� \ \ r � ' � .. k �N. ♦ t it_i_ ..- / .... . . Ot irfnIV /> \ ) N 1 1 .-:. 1 •. , ,,, li ‘, . \J .. .- - / , , ...- , , ------------- . , t, , / -------- , ./ . s... ____ __ _-- , — , \ -------- f 1 \ 1 ; j �; . �� , , \\ 1 • • ,+eye RitI 1 I t $4 % • /) if ._.y 1 i o f i 1 1 / fi r ` • li 1 1 ` j 1 /.�� ∎1 . /e' i 7: ,; 1 .. ...„,..„ .., . ,.. \ . .......„ 1 . ... s t J.-.-- . ,..t, \:.,,, .. r .1 : s 1 1,L i 1 '1 .... 44 1 • k 1 .II • }1I 1 • . �C•1 III 1 1 1.-----r. ill 1 1' t 1 1 1 i , Ii 1; 1 \\ ' 1 . • 1 1 - - - - - - - - lifL_ 1 D 1 - 767 fi -Y 14 1 a ' 1 10 - -=.__ ._ i \ 1 / AH I / `JI;5 / ' ' ' :1 TA 1 . . - V. e . S e S. - 1 6 i i ■+ 7: , r - A l P, 1 1 <,' . I ). 1 \ 1 1 1 i II .', i I , , 1 r , 7 II i t4 4 - --- 1 1► 1 ti L j O OII Q ,2__C, M J A ! 1 7 ii 1 r' h , L / l 1 U Z 1 J IP 1 1:11 li \ I II "_, 1 \ 1 \/ %i I \ \\.k., 1 1 , 1 Board of Adjustments and Appeals --- II September 14, 1992 - Page 6 Watson: We don't get into that at all. Carlin Maples: The reason I see that is, if you look at the file and it , was in March of this year they paid $75.00. We were charged $125.00... Al -Jaff: Oh, there's a $50.00 recording fee. One of the problems was that we often depended on the applicants to record their variances and they never did it. So the City decided that it's time for us to do it and so our City Attorney records all variances. In fact, all applications. It's not just variances. , Carlin Maples: Has this been changed in the Minutes? Krauss: We did change, I don't remember when it was but yes, it was by 1 Council action to change it... Technically the fee is still $75.00. It's the recording that we never charged for because we weren't doing it before. We were depending on you to do it. Some of that is the recordini fee itself. Yeah, I think $30.00 of it... Johnson: One question Mr. Maples. Is this going to be the same width? Watson: Would you still do the 16 feet the other way? Carlin Maples: I don't know right now. ' Watson: Can I just say, can we have a slight addendum so that...any longer than 16 feet the other way? Carlin Maples: It wouldn't be longer. Not at all. It could be less. Watson: Okay. Well, I'm just going to add that as a little addendum toll the variance so that we know that it can't be any bigger than 12 x 16. Okay? Thank you sir. BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE I FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 9981 DEER DRIVE, LOT 8, BLOCK 1, DEERBROOK, JAMES STELLICK. AI -Jaff: The applicant is proposing to build a single family residence II on a property that is within the bluff area. The ordinance requires a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff, which I have highlighted in greell on the survey. The applicant is building with a zero setback. Or is proposing to build with a zero setback to the bluff. What I have highlighted in red is where the green begins and of course it covers all the area up to the bluff. Where the applicant is proposing to place the I residence will destroy a large number of trees. Eventually this will cause erosion and it would defeat the purpose of protecting, defeat the purpose of the bluff ordinance. The bluff protection ordinance. There I are other designs that the applicant could pursue. We can't find a hardship. We are recommending denial of this application. Watson: Could I, do you mind if I start? I just have a question. , - -kY E -13 Board of Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 7 Johnson: Go ahead. ' Watson: Could we just run through one more time, how people were notified of, I know that the bluff ordinance is a relatively new ordinance and the process to notify people that this was in fact to be ' reality. Krauss: We did several, I mean in addition to the normal procedure of publication in the paper, we did several mailings to all the properties ' that we could identify that were located in the proposed bluff area. And in fact we made some allowances to some of those whereby building permits which were filed before the date that the ordinance became effective were ' honored. But I know that we had a lot of those people out at the meetings to discuss things and toured some of the sites that were brought into question. ' Watson: So we made what would be considered by city standards, an extraordinary effort to make sure that people were in fact notified and aware of? 1 Krauss: Oh, we did the best job we could, yeah. Watson: Yeah, that the ordinance did exist and that they would from this point forward be living with that. Because we seem to be seeing... Al -Jaff: The owner of the property was made aware of the bluff 1 ordinance. Johnson: Do you wish to address this sir? 1 Jim Stellick: Good evening. My name is Jim Stellick and my wife Rita Stellick is here. I guess I'd like to start by saying I was extremely disappointed to see that the staff declined to recommend this. This has been kind of a long time dream. The home proposed is a walkout. To my knowledge, every other home in the development is a walkout and if I understand this correctly, it means that a walkout cannot be built on ' this site. Regarding the trees, this site is approximately 400,000 square feet. I'm sorry, the treed portion of the site is approximately 400,000 feet. We're talking about removing trees. Granted. We must ' remove trees. Unfortunately there are trees where the house is proposed. However, that area represents actually less than 1% of the treed area. We love trees as much as anybody. We anticipate trying to move every ' possible tree that we can to put them to the north side of the site. I'm not sure the basis of the denial. The house is set back 30 feet from the bluff line. That was the instruction. To my knowledge that's what it is. The balconies or the decks encroach on the bluff line but not the ' structure itself. The first proposal to the city did include a site located further towards the bluff line. We modified that. Again, my concern on a walkout is the further you set a house back, the more you're ' disturbing the site, not the less. Therefore, we tried to disturb it less by having it to the front. Apparently there's a concern about erosion. I think the person that gets hurt the most by erosion is not the city or the State or the Federal government, it's the landowner. This is an expensive lot with a very nice view. It would be a disaster 1 1 Board of Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 8 1 for the owner if they were to build a house like this to have the bluff erode. This would not happen. We would not allow it to happen. I thinl� several things that can .be done to stop erosion. Incidentally, we're no talking about trees on the bluff being removed. The trees that are discussed here are on the plateau, up on top. Some of those trees are 511 to 70 feet back from the bluff line. We would intend to keep every single tree that we could keep on that site. And in fact plant more and transplant. So I think there is a hardship and the hardship is, that ti perponderance of homes in that area are walkouts. In fact I think they're all walkouts. And what this denial is saying, that you cannot build a walkout on that site. To me a two story home is not what we want to do. We cannot buy this lot if it means that you must build a two story. The only reason I think you would build a two story is because oill the bluff ordinance. And if you did that, you would still need a variance because on a two story you could not remove trees from the bluff. So therefore there would be really no point in buying that lot ill you couldn't see the bluff. Have a view or remove trees. You'd want to buy a 2 acre site which is about the flat part on top, and build your tw story house here. I don't know how anybody could buy this lot and build on it really with anything but a walkout and again a walkout is going to take some trees close to that bluff. The further you set it back away from the bluff, the more of a problem it is from how I interpret the bluff ordinance. There are several requirements that meeting in order Al get a variance. I believe we meet them all. I disagree with the planning report. I think it's called Section A. I believe there is undue hardship for the reasons I stated. Again, it's less than 1% of thil trees. 1% of the site. 1% of the site that's being effected. Section B. Apparently there's no dispute regarding our qualifying, nor in Section C nor in D. I'm sorry, D. The staff feels it's a self created 1 hardship. I don't understand that in that I don't think a walkout. We do have a requirement for a walkout. In the report I think you have it that we're caring for a mother. We do need access on two different II levels. We're anticipating more care in the future for family. That's one of the reasons we want a walkout. We cannot build a two story home. It doesn't service any function. I believe that this is a hardship. A il denial of this variance because every other home in the neighborhood is walkout and to my knowledge, the Tauton house to the west apparently was approved just prior to the passing of the bluff ordinance. A matter within a month. That home I believe is closer to the bluff than what ji we're proposing. Furthermore, it's my knowledge that recently a varianc was granted for a swimming pool that is again close to the bluff. Between the bluff and the house. Now if you're concerned about erosion II on the bluff, I question how you can allow a swimming pool which almost by definition will not allow any water to soak in. The water always is going to have to run off of that area. Therefore I think it is a hardship. I believe there are other homes that also were granted permit before the passing of this variance that would now need a variance. An therefore we are in conformance. What we're asking for is in conformance with other homes in the area and the reason that we pursued this II purchase. We're not the original acquirer. We just signed a purchase agreement July 1st, was because we were led to believe that other homes also did not meet the strict requirements of the bluff ordinance and did 1 have variances and we are in conformance with the other homes. We are not in conformance with the bluff ordinance. The decks were put onto 1 ' Board of Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 9 that site by the survey crew. Not by the home designer. The decks, Y g k they wouldn't be that big and I'm not even sure they'd be where they're ' proposed. Those decks could be modified but again, the building is supposed to be set 30 feet back, therefore not requiring a variance. The decks are what would infringe on the setback. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ' Watson: ...draw the 30 foot setback on that drawing. Is there any way you can do that? Where 30 feet from the bluff line would be. We don't know exactly where it is. Jim Stellick: If I might... Johnson: Is that dotted line now? Wing: Paul, have you been working this one? Krauss: No, Sharmin has and she's just run up to get her scale so we can ' repeat the exercise that she want through in the office. A couple things to clarify though. The deck is part of the structure. It's subject to the same setback and now you're telling us that the deck that's ' illustrated here on the plan you gave us is not in reality. Jim Stellick: I'm saying that that could easily be modified. Much more ' easily than the building itself. I'm aware that the deck is part of the structure. Johnson: This one corner of the house is kind of iffy right now... Wing: Do we have a clear cut position on where the bluff line is? Krauss: Yeah, that's established by official map. Watson: I just measured the 30 feet out and went around the edge. 1 Wing: I don't think we have to worry about this plan or the decks or anything else. The issue is, upholding the ordinance. ' Krauss: We think the surveyor identified the bluff line rather well. You have the full size copy there? That dashed line. ' Wing: Where are we at on this one? Are there more comments here? Johnson: Do you have any more comments right now? Jim Stellick: I'm happy to answer questions. Other than that, no. Wing: There's no sense trying to work off these maps. ' Krauss: No, you've got to work off of the full size one. Wing: Yeah, and the plan has to be varied, etc, etc. The issue is. 1 1 Board of Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 10 Krauss: Yeah, we have it for you right here. As a matter of fact, if you want to walk that up. 1 Wing: So this proposal does incringe on the bluff line protection ordinance? 1 Johnson: Yeah. Watson: Yeah. The house itself does cut the corners. 1 Johnson: Maybe we want to open this for discussion. Wing: Mr. Stellick, I was involved in the bluff line preservation. It'll probably one of the ordinances that I most believed in for the city, and this was a very lengthy process. It involved a lot of public hearings. A lot of give and take and even the owners out there agreed. You know for the best of the city long term, this ordinance was good and I held my breath that it was going to pass. And in fact it did and it's a recent ordinance. Out on Lake Minnewashta where I live, there's all sorts of II restrictions. If this was my lot, I'd be building the house right where it is. That's where I would like it. On Lake Minnewashta I'd like my house right on the lake with a boathouse out over the water but I can't do that. I voted for this ordinance and I think it was a good ordinance 1 I think it was in the best interest of the city long term. It protected the Bluff Creek corridor. Erosion came into it. Sight lines came into it and serving on the Council and having the Council vote for this ordinance unanimous, it'd be almost impossible for me to support your position and grant you a variance. It'd be denying the ordinance. Whether you build a walkout or two story or three story, what you build 1 there is your business. But I can't take any position that would incringe on that 30 foot setback. That to me is a black and white ordinance and I think those rules were agreed to be applied uniformily and pretty firmly from this point on. What occurred before in the give and take that's occurred, are kind of separate issues. But since the passage of the ordinance, I haven't seen any interest in the Council fro give or take on this issue at all. In fact being more protective. So I understand your positions. Watson: Well, erosion is the real issue with Bluff Creek. 1 Wing: Well, erosion's an issue. Sight line's an issue but this ordinance was put in to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and the Minnesota River Valley bluff and we're denying the ordinance if we were to go along with your request and to support the staff recommendation. can't vote for this ordinance on one Monday and turn around and deny it the next. • Jim Stellick: May I respond? Two points. Number one, I believe that the variance was granted on the adjacent house for a swimming pool. 1 Wing: Well that's not going to help me on this decision. Since I passed this ordinance, I'm not aware of that swimming pool request. I'm just 1 not willing to let people build into the ordinance we just passed. 1 Board of Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 11 1 Krauss: The one with the swimming pool was on a house that was built before the adoption of the ordinance. The swimming pool was illustrated on those plans. Because the ordinance passed, we had them revise the pool design to pull it back as far as possible. U Watson: We revised that pool considerably. Made it smaller and pulled it way in. ' Wing: And we didn't like it. But because of the give and take on the process, I remember that one. ' Jim Stellick: When did the ordinance get approved? Krauss: October of last year. Jim Stellick: The swimming pool was approved in the spring of this year. Watson: We know that. ' Wing: We know we did. We're not arguing that. It was the why's of how it occured. ' Resident: Well I just had the question, I'm the lot owner of Lot 10 in Deerbrook. And I'm interested in keeping the values up in that area. Paul Tauton's home is at least a three quarter of a million dollar home which I'm happy about. And to deny this, in my opinion, if you deny them to actually build that type of a home, that type of a home is the primo type home and anyone that wants to invest $120,000.00 in a piece of ' land... If you deny that type of a home, then you affect all property value and land value, and you affect the people in that area's overall value of homes which concerns me. ' Wing: If you were at the hearings on this, that was an argument and I think we made it clear that the type of home you build is your concern. You can build any home you want to. All we're saying is the homes are no longer going to be into, out over, or down the bluff. That's all. We put a stop to that and Paul, maybe you can clarify this. But I'm defending the ordinance and I'm not going to yeild on the ordinance and ' this is more than welcome to go to the City Council. Again, speaking for myself. But there's so much time and effort into this. I'm just going to be, my position is that I will not give on this variance, and on this ordinance. The protection ordinance is a new ordinance that has a lot of ' credibility and I'm not about to incringe on it right off the bat, so I can't go along with your request. Jim Stellick: May I make two comments. Number one, I'm quoting from the ordinance now and it says that you do have a right to have a variance. It says variances that blend with these pre - existing standards without departing from them meet this criteria. This house meets that. ' According to your legislation here that qualifies for a variance. Secondly, I'd like to ask, if this house were moved back another say 10 feet so that technically it doesn't encroach within 30 feet of the bluff, would you approve it then? Board of Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 12 Krauss: Well, I think that if the house were pulled back the 10 feet an we had a revised deck design that was consistent with that, you wouldn't need a variance. Jim Stellick: My point is you would. 1 Krauss: Why? Jim Stellick: And my point is that you hurt this site by doing that. You're going away from your objectives of trying to stop erosion. Trying to maintain trees. The further you set back a walkout house on a site that overlooks a valley, the more ground you're carving up. The further" away you get, the worse it is. That's why we try to come to the front. We actually started closer to the front and Sharmin rejected it and we modified it. Moved it back and we can move this house back. I would , rather have it back but you're carving out a lot of ground and that's what I don't think is appropriate. Krauss: But you're assuming that you'd be allowed to remove the bluff 1 line and excavate to wherever the home is. Jim Stellick: That's why I asked. If we move this house back, would it i be approved? Krauss: The ordinance says, let me see if I can find the right portion. Topographic alterations, grading and filling within the bluff impact zon shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage. ...property fil excavated material shall not be placed in the bluff impact zone. You're only allowed to remove enough vegetation so that you can provide a ' limited view from your home. You're not supposed to clear cut. Those things are all prohibitions in the ordinance. Arguably you would not be allowed to say my home is now set back 50 feet, I'm going to create a nell bluff line by, or an extended one by excavating that out. Johnson: I can't go along with it either for the simple reason, according to the sketch...rough sketch we've all seen, that house is already setting into the setback. If you're going to throw decks on it, we're going to be way back into it. As I understand the ordinance to begin with, decks would have to be outside of the. ...the deck would II have to be outside of the bluff line. So therefore you'd have to move the house forward enough to allow for a set of decks and a house and not coming back for a variance 2 weeks from now for anything. That house would have to be moved period as far as I'm concerned to allow for a deck. Watson: How do we allow for stabilization of the ground...The uncovered' ground to be a real problem for us for a considerably period of time. Krauss: Yeah, we do under the building permit require that erosion II control be established and maintained. That it be reseeded as soon as possible. We've also required that roof drainage systems be revised so that it's not focused at any one point. Drainage off the driveways can' be focused, because that's what really does it. Once you rechannel the water over the hill and it starts to go, it just keeps going. Board of Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 13 Jim Stellick: We would be happy 'Co comply with any drainage problem that PY P Y Y 9 P a house there creates. We're not trying to get around that. Don't want the water to erode the bluff. Johnson: I'll call for a motion. Wing: I think if there's any question, I'd prefer to have this go to Council. ' Watson: I think we should vote on it. I think we have an opinion. Wing: I'm going to move denial of #92 -11 variance for the address of. Watson: It's Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook. I'll second that. ' Johnson: I would like to see it, if you want to throw it in your motion, that it's got to meet, for the reasons, it's got to meet the deck setbacks and everything. I guess you'd hassle that over in the future. Wing: All I'm doing is. Johnson: Denying it. ' Wing: Yeah, the bluff preservation ordinance is taking precedent here and there's no incringement on that 30 foot setback. And by denying this, we've done that. Wing moved, Watson seconded to deny Variance #92 -11 for Lot 8, Block 1 Y 1, Deerbrook. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Johnson: The reason I voted that way is, I want everything, one of our reasons to set back decks and all has to be away from the bluff line. 11 Wing: Paul, if there's a disagreement with our position here, what's the applicant's? Krauss: You have the right to appeal this decision to the City Council. If you'd just notify Sharmin that you'd like to do that. If we get your appeal quick enough, and you can put it in writing if you want, explain ' your position, it will go to the Council on the 28th. Jim Stellick: Well we don't have much time. We may very well have lost ' the lot but we will try that. Thank you. Johnson: Can we move for a motion to close the public hearings. Wing: So moved. Jim Stellick: Where do you get copies of that? ' Watson: The ordinance? Jim Stellick: Where do you get copies of 1 Board of o Adjustments and Appeals September 14, 1992 - Page 14 Watson: Go to the Planning Department. Krauss: Do you want a copy of the ordinance? Jim Stellick: This variance. The setback variance. Wing: The bluff preservation ordinance? You can have my copy right here if you'd like it. Watson: ...I guess I've lost it but I'm sure it was just about ground stabilization and how long we take them to make. Krauss: It's as long as the construction process goes on. The building' inspector's supposed to insure that it's taken care of before the house is closed up. Bigger homes take a longer time to build though. Watson: Yeah, I understand that. Okay. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1