7. Appeal decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a Bluff Line Preservation Setback Variance Request, 9981 Deerbrook Dr. C ITYOF
7
•
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by City Administratot
Endorsed ✓ D (
Modified
MEMORANDUM Rejected_
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
• Dcte q
Date Submitted to Commission
1 FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I Date Submitted to Coinc.1[
q -4-y a ' DATE: September 22, 1992
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
a Residence, Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook, James and Rita Stellick
1 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
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
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
(Attachment #1).
The applicant is appealing the denial to the City Council. Staff continues to recommend denial
of this variance application.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Board of Adjustment minutes dated September 14, 1992.
2. Staff report dated September 14, 1992.
1
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Board of Adjustments and Appeals --�
September 14, 1992 - Page 6
11
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
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 recording
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 to
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
FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
9981 DEER DRIVE, LOT 8, BLOCK 1, DEERBROOK, JAMES STELLICK.
' 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, which I have highlighted in green
' 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
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
are other designs that the applicant could pursue. We can't find a
hardship. We are recommending denial of this application.
11 Watson: Could I, do you mind if I start? I just have a question.
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals 1
September 14, 1992 - Page 7
Johnson: Go ahead. 1
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. 1
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. An
in fact we made some allowances to some of those whereby building permit
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 broughll
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?
Krauss: Oh, we did the best job we could, yeah.
Watson: Yeah, that the ordinance did exist and that they would from thill
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
ordinance.
Johnson: Do you wish to address this sir?
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'
not sure the basis of the denial. The house is set back 30 feet from th
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 II
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 8
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 think
several things that can•be done to stop erosion. Incidentally, we're not
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 50
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 the
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 of
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 if
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 two
' 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 to
get a variance. I believe we meet them all. I disagree with the
I 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 the
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
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
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
denial of this variance because every other home in the neighborhood is a
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
we're proposing. Furthermore, it's my knowledge that recently a variance
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
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 permits
before the passing of this variance that would now need a variance. And
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
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
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
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 9
that site by the survey crew. Not by the home designer. The decks, 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 II
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 ca
repeat the exercise that she want through in the office. A couple thing
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. i
Watson: I just measured the 30 feet out and went around the edge.
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. 1
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. 1
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. ,
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 10
11
Krauss: Yeah, we have it for you right here. As a matter of fact, if
' you want to walk that up.
Wing: So this proposal does incringe on the bluff line protection
ordinance?
Johnson: Yeah.
Watson: Yeah. The house itself does cut the corners.
Johnson: Maybe we want to open this for discussion.
r Wing: Mr. Stellick, I was involved in the bluff line preservation. It's
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
1 ordinance. Out on Lake Minnewashta where I live, there's all sorts of
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.
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
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 from
' give or take on this issue at all. In fact being more protective. So
I understand your positions.
11 Watson: Well, erosion is the real issue with Bluff Creek.
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. I
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.
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
11 not willing to let people build into the ordinance we just passed.
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 11
11
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.
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 I
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 II
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 thell
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 II
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 II
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 II
can't go along with your request.
Jim Stellick: May I make two comments. Number one, I'm quoting from till
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. II 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?
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
11 September 14, 1992 - Page 12
Krauss: Well, I think that if the house were pulled back the 10 feet and
we had a revised deck design that was consistent with that, you wouldn't
need a variance.
' Jim Stellick: My point is you would.
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
line and excavate to wherever the home is.
' Jim Stellick: That's why I asked. If we move this house back, would it
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 zone
shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage. ...property fill
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 new
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
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'rn concerned to allow for a
deck.
I 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
control be established and maintained. That it be reseeded as soon as
possible. We've also required that roof drainage systems be revised so
11 that it's not focused at any one point. Drainage off the driveways can't
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
1
Jim Stellick: We would be happy to comply with any drainage problem that
a house there creates. We're not trying to get around that. Don't want'
the water to erode the bluff.
Johnson: - I'11 call for a motion.
Wing: I think if there's any question, I'd prefer to have this go to II
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 II
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,
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.
Wing: Paul, if there's a disagreement with our position here, what's thll
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-that?
Board of 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
I is closed up. Bigger homes take a longer time to build though.
Watson: Yeah, 1 understand that. Okay.
1
1
1
r
1
1
11
1
1
. e71
1TY O F BOA DATE: 9/14/92 II
� � i •
C HAITHAhEI C C DATE: •
��. CASE #: 92 -11 VAR
I
By:. Al -Jaff
STAFF REPORT II
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
J 10432 Purdey Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
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
Q WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site terrain slopes to the south. The
W property contains mature trees.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
II
1
Stellick Variance #92 -11
September 14, 1992
Page 2
1 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).
1 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
r 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:
a. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue
hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put
I 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 '
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.
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 11 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 '
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
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.
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. Letter from applicant.
2. Bluff Protection Ordinance.
3. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated July 17, 1991.
4. Property owners notified of variance.
5. Site Plan.
11
1
11
1
ATTACHMENT TO THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR JAMES P. & RITA K. STELLICK
III
1) Completed Application Form - Attached
1
2) Application Fee - Attached
3) Evidence of ownership - Purchase Agreement attached
1
4) Location map - Attached
5) List of property owners within 500 feet - Attached 1
6) Property adjacent to a lake - Not applicable I
7) Plot plan - Attached
8) Written description of variance requested - We request a variance from Ordinance No. 152 which
I
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 less than 30 feet for parts of
I
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. 1
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 I
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.
1
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
1 similar variance.
b) The above conditions would appear to not be applicable to other property within the same zoning
classification.
I
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 I
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
i
the total site, there are approximately 9 acres of land in front of the home, looking down the bluff
to the south.
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
� CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 152
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
' 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
(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
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
11 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 %.
I 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
t
11
11
t
Section 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended
by adding Article XXVIII to read as follows: 1
ARTICLE XXVIII. •
pLUFF PROTECTION 1
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
(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.
Section 20 -1402. Stairways, Lifts and Landings. 1
•
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
(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.
2
1
1 '
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or
landings.
(4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed
above the ground on posts or placed into the ground
provided they are designed and built in a manner that
ensures control of soil erosion.
(5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most
visually inconspicuous portions of lots.
(6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for
physically handicapped persons are also allowed, provided
that the dimensional and performance standards, of sub -
items (1) to (5) are complied with.
Section 20 -1403. Removal or Alteration of Vegetation.
r Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone
is prohibited except for limited clearing of trees and shrubs and
fi
cutting, pruning and trimming of trees to provide a view from the
principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of
stairways and landings and access paths.
Removal or alteration of vegetation must receive prior
approval of the Planning Director or designee. An on site review
will be made to determine if the removal or alteration of
vegetation will require new ground cover. In no case shall 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.
11 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 °r .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.
3
•
1
•
Section 20 -1406. Official Map.
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. 1
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 rZ4
day of c'. , 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
11
1
I CIT' OF
r , ‘
` r CHANHASSEN
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -
` (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
July 17, 1991
II
Dear Property Owner:
The City is considering adopting a bluff preservation ordinance.
II 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
I could be sent to .affected property owners explaining the bluff
preservation ordinance.
II 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
I 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.
1 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
II 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.
' 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,
II 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
II 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.
11 •
1
July 17, 1991
Page 2 Ils
Attached is a copy of the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission
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 1
Senior Planner
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
1
11
i
1
1 5-•1 111110. I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ~ 1
PIONEER
CIRCLE
1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND
o -
APPEALS ��
Monday, SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 - 6:30
1 P.M. _ oliii%
City Hall Council Chambers '1 690 Coulter Drive i Project Bluff Line Preservation 1 J Setback Variance ;
J
Applicant: James and Rita Stellick
Location: 9981 Deerbrook Drive -
1 Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook i t lit,,, 5. Z `2
& %69 8 �/i
S V 5 OR �NiE
1
., _ S . nut) 1( -
II 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
PP g PAP P g
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.
1 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 - -ff(D•CI-6(\ ...--• /7 ,.4i. : - - f, .
1
KEVIN BUESGENS 1ST AMERICAN BANK METRO PAUL TAUNTON
9940 DEERBROOK DRIVE 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET 10125 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE 1
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: aLMi N . _ `_, ..x0 612 942 9419 APR 23, 1992 3: 50PM P
• •
-, 14 O L
1
14 ■
NItr
L .... 1
QT II
".. •••>r,,, . ••••••• Ili ( f Or
s. '44 ;3 # 4
S, P 1 A N
• P •� a sk„, ‘ .
t t 114. ,7
'44
1
..,... 11(;),,,C4 111... I
ii.� M \ \ \\ ( may )
"•••• ///9.
1,4 ''.1. )\1• ....
.) I ? \ 9 s / !L . • . , ., , 4 0 0, 4 , •
-r'
Ni �4a yy :'r •
• ' „t' - s-. !ti' a \ `, ,` \� `t, .
0 ° .. ' ., •} ^�!t'i •' �� +., ' ' ' ).11„ . r 4p ,, < a °i C I S ` � I
t i 4 W . . S i ■ i • 1 '' a' yj: .,.. , t y . •..
t ' L i r • ,` ♦,f 4'
i lli
' 1 1' + � {S 0' 7.-':.',2:,t .• i s � 1 J 1%,' I, 4 %' • ^• 5 , � 11y it ■
_✓ - t +
•.,•.om •f' —4.c. , JCl
f.`,Ah' 1 e r" „ r. ' ' ' , g'
sS
i /:' `■F• ' i : V, A '-: ;t 1..,N
•
'P i j 11 M. i o a s - •r ..43E\ ..,0 `sue Z b
Ec -. :' n rot « t
1
•
�
'
rf ' l M I
- Aiwa, •Mr.VAn y -• . �I'i pg '9 ho7._... i . t 50, . •""':.:�. 1401175 ?INd4'Y.NOd01 la I it ■
i �
•
I /
a ,
/
/
I /
C L
CO
•
1 1
Q
llhh
13 U Q_ t
,
m
, s
s
/ -- -�� r
. �� \� �� ��
1
/ � - -- ms ` ,..; r W =� \ `� \
' : , i i ' 1 J : ° ii enir 1 \
i r/ ` T �,� / / � / / / k . 1 4%
1 ' \ J t _ / / // ----- - - - - --
1
• ' /. ` \J / ---- - - - - -- .... ---- •
. ,_.,_ .7. ------- - .
, \
,_, . sss. .,.-.;...„-__-. ...
_,--- ...„ „....., ,\\ ,
, .,„,„ . so,
�..1:�1
i o y✓
�i , n 7.11,5..-- . i
-- _ -i
y
i •
i
...
1
111
. ,.
.
II • ,
// '
.. I
:1 4____ 1 .•
/
1 , ' LI r---- —
'% / '""
c/ C
I ! 1 ;
I <
\ ‘....., ,
1
.• . .
\ 1
1 1 1
. .
•
1 •
,
, , ,<‘7 .\I i
. ..
7 11111 -
,.' ‘
1 .
.
‘ \'. \\\,, \
v , !
\ 1
.. I
11
. , • •
4, 'v... ••• , . -: •.'• . . - 111 ;
I ,c• ....,,, -„:,•,... ,• .„: . .: , : j ! •
.■ ,, !.. s
1
; T , ., ., ., i.,•e' i , ..
...*:. '.... ,'., ;" •:-Li P1 . . • . ' ' "..- , -
• ..-.'" , • • '.:•*:t i ' - "P •••
I
!!‘ • • : , - 11 i , •
. • • •
' N • 't ''.., ., ; _ ' ' • . ,. it . .
't •
. ;‘,, ...>„,,,..,.‘• ' .... ( •. 'I'' 'Il
Ill
• ) • ' — I
IL I
. I
. II'
1
.
. o I '
it
— I.
....t... ---.--,
, I 1111
it Wag
1 . .
. it 1
II t ,
tt I
1
I .
I 1 ,i
ii 1
1
1 \ • ,._... . ,
, . ........_______
1
1
I
r■r
\ I
, i i 1 41:11...1 L,
r —J
_ � poi
a t 1 -----3 : .
1
/
1
\ N
1
m \ I
S ,,k/ •
,.____ ______. ,,_ "to I ' I ": -141.1.111 0 4
1
1 Ell 1 J
I I 1. '1-. Vt"7-IM/: 0 ?.,•----;=> \
III
.
1
1
\ ,, :
1
\-\ 1
1
s?
1
1
1
, I
1
i I I
I \ ,
N ---1
1
:,
1 1 , O
,
1 IJ1 tl 3 , °
1
N 1
'1
‘.___ , 1 / 1
1
./
l .
1
I. % tr
I
/
1
1 -
1
1 e k
• 4 '
\\\ _
• '‘ .
1
\ \
I Y,
■ . ., ,,, ,
1
, .
/ /
z z
, -
/
,
1
,
. ,