9. Decision of Board of Adjustment rear yeard variance 1840 Pheasant Drive CITYOF --
4 °444 1 cHANHAssEN
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Male CKy A'1 "vi - 3 tot
.
1 ✓ 1w �
MEMORANDUM fit`
Rsj��F
1 Dste ' i b` `1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date s;,bnf;ed to C,c—r- *iap
1 FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I us tc
- , - ..
DATE: April 14, 1992
1 SUBJ: David Schissel, 11 Foot Rear Yard Variance Request
On April 13, 1992, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed a variance for an 11
foot rear yard setback. The applicant built a deck before applying for a building permit.
1 The deck is setback 14 feet from the rear property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires
attached accessory structures to maintain a minimum setback of 25 feet. Staff recommended
denial of the variance for reasons outlined in the attached staff report (Attachment #2).
1 The Board of Adjustments denied the variance request due to the fact that approval of this
application would set a precedent in the neighborhood (Attachment #3). Board Member
Carol Watson pointed out that approximately two years ago, the Board of Adjustments and
1 Appeals and City Council denied a similar application within the same subdivision
(Attachment #4).
The applicant has appealed the decision of the Board and requested that the City Council
review this application. Staff maintains its position by recommending denial of Variance
1 #92 -3 for reasons outlined in the staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Ms. Esther Steller received April 13, 1992.
2. Staff report dated April 13, 1992.
1 3. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes dated April 13, 1992.
4. Staff report and City Council Minutes dated September 25, 1989.
1
1
ea
t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
.1
4
, '.L ,'(�,,�, _,'y cr. ✓✓`v ✓� ,�` - �- "- -' — �, .'� - 7=!� - vu.c�. li -,-ut ...� -; 2� . 1. �;
r ie " 11161111M111116411 n Y L� tt...z L GL
1
-� - 1 _ � • t - v t , - L_ • 4 ; 1 - - - - - `e4) Vii C =ti's G\
•
. J
u� Q,.�. r"- - rl i(,✓) - !.'cam ��ti,eK.L �
t
L• �.- • i. —c - L'r :.f -
1 f �
'��' � 'V mss► -�.i�• t �-ti.
1
1
RECENED
' APR 13
2
1 CITY oF &HAN H EN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
: ITY OF E . DATE: April 13, 1992
� '� I ' •
.
HAI7HA!E7 CC DATE:
CASE # : 92 -3 VAR
By: Al- Jaff /v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: An 11 Foot Rear Yard Variance for an Existing Deck
I" LOCATION: 1840 Pheasant Drive - Lot 5, Block 1, Pheasant Hill I
Z APPLICANT: David Schissel
1840 Pheasant Drive
V Excelsior, MN 55331
Q
PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development- Residential
ACREAGE: Approximately 14,500 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - PUD; single family
S - Pheasant Drive & PUD; single family
E - PUD; single family
W - PUD; single family
4 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
0
W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site slopes to the southwest.
1
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
i 7-
1 ,, •
V O O P O N a� 01 m O 4 D ' n - •
le, ( I , I t � • I � aNr
. i _.�.0s . • : i .e.
—______ rea,„
7 1.111 ANWLIMIIIIM lailiF 41r
• 4,,„ I EV 111
r a E1101111111.
1 tr4■ rm • •N' my
r b ` � � � � 31� �Vi t��� � �► " � � �� �
"� '
i t i rim 4 ,417, k r . i!h atilv :7 - fa amosw..41.,p14( I.- _
bow .
ii, ayrea ih ,. ili 11Fad 4°1 .
II - I 0 1 lb■ S 0. ■ EM ..,__•.--- fe l; :44 , ft softt , 1 ,,,,...
. i orlimirmirA, .,
.
, IlL (..)... .....,,,,..,„ 1 ,,,,,
co
111 442WW C l . J c+ ° UR —
LAKE `' „...,____
-1F._____________________ - . R - Vim' . \ __ •4
cr
Mt/SON LAKE LUCY
_ Ill ir t —. - - .1 Th I . -1_,”) RD .T i
N. ?. k .
,... .._. _ _____ , ii
It r -.I
J i,, J .- : .• SH •
m �/ . Q
I (z-)
' LAKE ANN , . GA
: RD
11
Schissel Variance 1„
April 13, 1992
Page 2
1
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20 -615 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30 foot setback
1
for a rear yard. Section 20 -908 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows
unenclosed decks to project 5 feet into the rear yard.
BACKGROUND
Staff has been working with the applicant since August 15, 1991, to
get a variance application.
On July 30, 1991, staff was notified by the Building Department
that the deck on the subject property was built without a permit.
1
The applicant was asked to apply for a building permit to make the
structure legal. An application for a building permit was then
submitted by the applicant. Review of the building plans indicated
that a variance was required.
On August 15, 1991, staff sent a letter as a follow up to a
• telephone conversation staff had with the applicant. During the
telephone conversation and in the August 15, 1991, letter, staff
explained that a variance was needed for the deck as it encroached
into the required rear yard setback. The applicant was given a
deadline of September 3, 1991, to submit a variance application.
The applicant failed to meet the deadline.
On October 8, 1991, the applicant was notified again by the ,
Building Department that a variance was required for the deck. The
applicant was asked to apply for a variance by October 18, 1991.
On February 27, 1992, the applicant was sent a certified letter
explaining that we had not received an application.
On March 9, 1992, the applicant contacted staff to explain that he 1
received the letter on March 7, 1992, and indicated that sometime
during November of 1991, he submitted an envelope containing an
application with a $75.00 fee and all the additional information
required to process a variance application. Staff never received
the application and the applicant stated that the check which was
made out to the city, was never cashed. 1
On March 12, 1992, the applicant submitted the application, the
fee, and the rest of the required materials to process the variance
application.
Staff wishes to bring the Board's attention to a variance
application #89 - that was reviewed by the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals and City Council in September of 1989. A variance was
requested for a'deck that was built 16 feet from the rear property
line. The parcel is located within the same subdivision as the
y ' Schissel Variance
April 13, 1992
Page 3
II subject property, and the circumstance is identical. The Board of
Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council denied the variance
request and gave the applicant the option of either tearing down
I the deck or reducing the depth of the deck to meet the required
setback. The applicant obtained additional land from their
neighbors and eliminated the variance (Attachment #4).
II Staff is bringing variance application #89 -12 to your attention
because of the similarity in the situation and to recommend that
• the Board remains consistent in their vote.
II ANALYSIS
II The applicant lives at the existing home at 1840 Pheasant Drive.
The lot has an existing deck which was built before applying for a
building permit. The deck which has dimensions of 24 x 20 feet,
1 requires an 11 foot rear yard setback variance. The Zoning
Ordinance requires all decks to maintain a distance of 25 feet from
the rear property line. The subject deck is setback 14 feet from
the rear property line.
' A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
or City Council only if all of 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
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
I 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.
* Staff field surveyed the area within 500 feet of the
property and found that all the structures meet the
II required setbacks. The ordinance also calls for undue
hardship which means the property cannot be put to
reasonable use because of its size, physical
I surroundings, shape or topography. In this case, the
applicant built the deck prior to applying for a building
permit. He also failed to consult with staff to find out
1 were the buildable area on his property is. Staff feels
that the hardship is a self created hardship. There are
other locations on the property where the deck could be
built and meet the setback required by ordinance.
II Furthermore, the applicant has full use of the property.
II
II
Ir
Schissel Variance
April 13, 1992 •
Page 4
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is
based are not applicable, generally, to other property within
1
the same zoning classification.
* The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is
based are not applicable generally, to other property
within the same zoning classification.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire
1
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. 1
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, had the
applicant followed the proper procedure by applying for
a building permit, staff would have aided the applicant
and recommended an alternative design.
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 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.
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.
1
1
1
II Schissel Variance
April 13, 1992
' Page 5
Staff believes that the owner has reasonable use of the property.
' There are other locations and different designs the applicant could
pursue. On this basis, staff is recommending denial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the
' following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies Variance Request #92 -3
for reasons outlined above."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Plan.
2. Letters from staff dated August 15, 1991 and February 27,
1992.
' 3. Letter from the applicant received on March 12, 1992.
4. Staff report 89 -12 Variance
5. Deck Plans.
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
�y / 1
Vt \ A \ V 7 V
y 1 / , - 1 ,.. . e.
/)/ ,/ ,/ / co\ /1 \ s. .-,
o?V : \ / / x ii:t
1
/ ‘ / 1 \) 4' .. ) 4
_ , AnCi) V \ ' N
C` i t V/ �`` ? / / 5. ..bk. / .. � M 1
s / N "Q / I;,
1 - ii J // 06 ,3 \ / , ,..6„..--7. ..=. 1.....4 +, l■ f
i ? ! ' 1
, ;W'
/ 6-\ / i / — ■.,,, •
i } a\ `, \ o /1 I y r ti N �J No 1
�� / I
�� h _ 1 0 N V1
�j � - _.._9 � • r / I
�� A Qu o x 4 . - ° y iv l Y
/
/ r S ' -.
4 4 / ix ���j�S _ RI n
o 7.. v o '
i i Q ; N
1
1
N n
I — 1
1
'
y
N 0 1
1 CITY OFF •
, s‘ CHANHASSEN
`r
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Y a
August 15, 1991
1
Mr. David Schissel
' 1840 Pheasant Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
' Dear Mr. Schissel:
This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation which took
place on August 15, 1991. As I explained to you, a variance must
' be secured from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Enclosed you will find an application which should be completed and
returned to City Hall by September 3, 1991. A list of property
owners within 500 feet of your property boundary should also be
' submitted. This list may be obtained from Carver County Abstract
and Title Company (448 -5570) or you may compile a list from City
Hall. There is a fee of $75 for a variance application.
1 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
. • , ✓
Sharmin Al -Jaff
1 Planner I
•
SA:v
1
1
1 •
1
� OY PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
a
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
.
February 27, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. David Schissel
1840 Pheasant Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331 •
Dear Mr. Schissel: 1
. . On July 30, 1991, you were notified by the 'Building Department that the deck on your
property was built without a permit. You were asked to apply for a building permit to make
the structure legal. An application for a building permit was then submitted by you. On
August 15, 1991, I sent you a letter as a follow up to a telephone conversation we had.
During our telephone conversation and in the August 15, 1991, letter, I explained to you
that a variance was needed for the deck as it encroaches into the required rear yard setback.
You were given a deadline of September 3, 1991, to submit a variance application. You
failed to meet the deadline.. On October 8, 1991, you were notified again by the Building
Department that a variance was required for the deck:w:The need for the variance was only
made clear after reviewing you plans. You were also asked to apply for a variance by 1
October 18, 1991.
As of today, we have not received your application. This deck is setback 14 feet from the
rear property line. Section 20 - 908, (5)d. Yard regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance requires
all decks to maintain a distance of 25 feet from the rear property .line (Attachment # 1).
Based on the foregoing, you are in violation.of the Zoning Ordinance: "'You have the option
of cutting back the depth of the deck to meet the required setback, or apply for a variance
by March 5, 1992. This date will result in your v riance- application being heard on March
23, 1992. I also do not want to mislead you in way. Approval of the variance is at the
sole discretion of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. However, based upon a
preliminary review, the Planning Department is not likely to be able to recommend
approval. Enclosed you will find an application and a list of materials required to. be
1
•
1
%IP PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
•
•
1 Mr. David Schissel
•
February 27, 1992
Page 2
1 submitted with the application. Failure to submit our application or remedy the situation
Y PP Y
by this date will result in legal action by the city.
' If you have any q uestions, please feel free to contact me.
1 Sincerely,
c:Az>
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner I
•
pc: Steve Kirchman, Building Official
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Enclosure
•
1
1
1
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
1
1
DAVID T. SCHISSEL PAGE 1 OF 1 1
1840 PHEASANT DR.
EXCELSIOR, MN. 55331 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The request is for an existing deck which currently encroaches the 25 foot rear and I
set back regulation by 11 feet. If the deck were to be cut back to meet the 25 foot set back
regulation there would be 3 feet of deck. The option of building the deck out 3 feet and
I
wrapping the deck around the side of the house could only be accomplished by destroying
3 fully grown spruce trees. Also of interest, the deck as it exists now is built around a 35
foot maple tree which is located 4 feet out from the sliding glass door. The deck is built on I
a hill which slopes towards the house, thus making the majority of the deck to be at
ground level. The property of Esther Steller (lot -003 block -001) is the rear property in
which the deck is to be set back from. The house on lot -003 block -001 is above and
looking down on the deck because of the slope of the hill. Also of note, the deck faces the
side of the house on lot -003 block -001, not the back of the house. Because of the hill
sloping towards the deck and down to the road (a vertical drop from the rear to the front of
the property of 20 feet or more) the usable space of the back yard of my property is
I
minimal. Given the facts stated above I am requesting this variance of 11 feet .
DAVID T. SCHISSEL 1
(
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' K; , ! rn ; &
I's, is
. • _ =r `� \- f • / i
t S.24-2S41 1 ` \ -/ � ' '�� \'
// /, ----4 ____:
BUILDERS �. /� � a �0� / ��� � / s � � 1 '\
'o
,
.. ti
0 .�,., . / . ✓ 4 , j'., ' :. • ` ^ ,4. t
P.O. Bcx :01 =
t Chanhassen, Minnesota 5 . 3317 `= �, ��° •
/ \- I / ^ 3 v. 4i y1 \.
. � ,,�' . ', .......4 .............°. •••''''''''
ji. —
/ 7/. 0 0 /90 v 7 �. • �� ` a l� \ 1 ' , " ° � : �� t` fl ,1.....-.0,...--,4_,/ —
n l 0
1/3> :*\*,' q` \`' '‘.., '": t- •••,....> ,%-... • \ C.:A \ ea 1...--r
k t.t1 , ;:...'' . , „,„,..P1 rr• k.. i - \ ......1 .� W SJ • - t+ '� / -1 ., . ) i -�-- - . -• \ 1 a- "C. / • J o s !� - �� ,r t 1 a /\ f f �/ • •
_t 1 ' 4 ' - .P.C, "....... .... N t. ,,,. . i r..-7. k - -- ,, ',I 1 \\...... ..f ‘ . _4
0 *. A-7: A , . 4 , -7 ..: \ ,,,,i' ft 1,ry rr,p7 - a . 3,,
V NN/ 7 ; 'Y°2•r• _ l - 7 .sue -? a '
I 1,, 1 I (1 Z . "...: . 5 1 " - - ..... *-- ../. ' ' ,•■ \r 'II dc '''• 1\ \
, ,,,,._
, , ,,,, ,, „. ,..., , , .,;\ zu..., .1.
,), / e%."' . s'.; e ... .-... 42.-....---_,...... .•:;te,-2/ 11.10 1 %, r) \.. a r ///t ....1.... .,5 , ...:
J (...)% •? ti/ ^ , 4� 7, � 1 I�� � ; \ `� 00 t, �1 ^ QIy a , '' \ � '1 /.� .0 j7- 1 O ^'_ o a r' �� • \ ;N
Z L " . " . �° � • ° l � y' p ci / r '; '.% j r ig . I i t,, 4 t a h. o-
. t a S .__Z
2 V. u ° , ir1 0 0 i; =. co ,1 l of o 1 1 / ?4.00 ��, = z _ _ .. -- I
4. r ` • : 1 • !8 / 36_'rJ lo�, 0 4. 1 0' r/. // 6 31
, o ,` _ 5 ; };, o W I, .: i ' . - — // �e. .
--� (- 1 11' w 1 1 1 a o � / _ o N/ // a • ' c n I it
e \ 'L 1 s CO a�, 1 ,� � 1. ,7 X ` ' / / ./ �IJ { • + ti i 't / / W D 1
✓ \ 4,
1 � � ' •� � �, ,�C '81. , C Al..," 7 � Z � ` ! 1 t • R 1 N G m S J \7 \ o s2 % / /..i.1 J 1
00 c � , '- �� S� + \Q '•° L': 3/,. a . . � u % ti�1 �i� Lir
v.... ,..s.• ..: .....--,_--,,,i, : _ Q c o• t i t 9 1
a e al 0 � 1 ■ °; � !' � l l + i o A� �' r O1 �
'` t r '
C
. ri •+ /\J ,..,:. I - I ! - • - • - •• _ " A / „+ ,. • ? ' -
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 7
Watson: Yeah, but it won't reduce the congestion. Everywhere you look, I
mean there's hardly a piece of ground big enough to mow. '
Johnson: Get the lean to off. See that lean to was put on without a
permit and then the Board got it and the Board denied it and the Council
down the road. ...before I forget Sharmin. That one we granted, oh boy
I don't have my map either. That one where we had to redo the road. It's
no cul -de -sac, it's a T. There's nothing happening down there. Now how
long ago was that? '
Al -Jaff: It hasn't been a year yet. It's a year from the date we record
it.
Watson: Is there a problem with that?
Al -Jaff: No. They're waiting until spring. So now it's spring so anytim'
now.
Johnson: I hope the city keeps an eye on that one. I mean if it goes oval
the time.
Al -Jaff: They did, according to the ordinance, they have done substantial
work. I mean if you count the cul -de -sac. '
Johnson: Yeah. I just figured that was part of, should have been, that
was some past stuff they never did get done. Can we move ahead and just '
approve the Minutes?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wing moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Chanhassen Board of Adjustment and Appeals Minutes. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
11 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING DECK LOCATED AT 1840 PHEASANT II
DRIVE, DAVE SCHISSEL.
Al -Jaff: This is an after the fact variance. The applicants built a deck.'
that has dimensions of 24 x 20 feet. It requires an 11 foot rear yard
setback variance. The zoning ordinance requires all decks to maintain a
distance of 25 feet from the rear property line. The subject deck is set
back 14 feet from the rear property line. We surveyed the area within 500
feet. All the structures meet the required setbacks. The difficulty is
self created. Had the applicant followed procedure and applied for a
building permit before building the deck, we had pointed out where the
buildable area is. We believe that there are other alternatives for this
deck to be built and maintain the required setbacks. We are recommending
denial of this proposal. Thank you. One thing I would like to point out
is approximately 2 years ago you reviewed an extremely similar proposal.
Watson: I remember. In this neighborhood and the gentleman bought land
order to use this deck.
Johnson: Is the applicant here wish to talk? '
•
II Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 8
' David Schissel: My name is David Schissel. Applying for the variance.
There's some things I guess I want to point out tonight. First of all, I
talked to I guess 2 of you and Sharmin and I have been working on this
together. I didn't get a permit because I didn't think I needed one
because the house was fairly new. I'm negligent there. That issue is done
I guess. There's nothing I can do to change that. Steven...one of the
' city inspectors...informed me I had to have a permit and at that point
I guess I went down and applied for the permit... Also I'd like to add
that when I built the thing, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong. I
thought you could be 10 feet from the rear and the sides. I didn't know
' there was... I checked with both of my neighbors before I built the deck.
One of them...I brought a note from here explaining the fact of how she
feels about the whole thing. Before I built the deck I checked with these
' people and planned the deck and nobody had any problem with the think. I
guess I don't know, for whatever this is worth.
Watson: Yeah, it will be made part of the record.
David Schissel: Obviously you can read from it. She has no objections.
She'd like to see it stay the way it is. I know you've all looked at the
' deck. I disagree that it's a self created hardship. Yeah I did build the
deck without the permit and it is a big deck but....33 acres. It's a nice
sized piece of property. It's long and skinny. And being on a hill coming
' down from the back property line to the road, we had set the house back
into the hill. And in doing so, the rear of the house is only 30 from
the, at it's minimum from the rear property... And at that time the city
in fact never pointed out to me or at least made it aware to me that hey,
' you're not going to be able to build much of a deck out this door...
Nothing was ever said and as I understand policies of Chanhassen have since
changed making it, the homeowner to sign off so they understand the
setbacks. I've got trees, full grown trees growing on the side of the
house. I can't build a deck into that... I'm not going to cut down trees.
If the deck has got to go, I'm not going to have a deck. I'm just not
going to build it. I'm not going to have a 5 foot deck out that door going
around the side of the house. None of the neighbors, I've talked to the
one even across the street. Now I know they don't have to look at it but I
talked to her. Nobody has a problem. I know I'm violating the ordinance.
' I guess if anybody had a problem with it in the first place, especially the
two people that look at the deck, I wouldn't even apply for the variance.
But that's why I'm applying for the variance. If the deck can stay, remain
' the way it is right now. It's a ground level deck. It fits in. It blends
in. I think very well and given that fact of...I don't know what else to
say.
'
•
Johnson: Anyone have any questions first?
Watson: You know, I really don't have any questions. It's an attractive
deck. I mean it never was an issue of whether it looks nice. It looks
fine. It is very large. 20 x 24 is one big deck.
David Schissel: Yeah, but it's not 20 x 24. It's 14 feet out by 24. The
other 20 is the part that wraps around the side of the house.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals II
April 13, 1992 - Page 9
Watson: Around that side of the house where that piece goes, it's about 6I
feet? Where are the trees over here? I looked at this thing from every
angle. Where are the trees that are over here? 1
David Schissel: The deck is going into them. The trees are going into the
deck right now.
II
Wing: Like they're built right into them. A
Watson: Yeah, that's what I thought. I couldn't remember if they were up ,
here further.
David Schissel: No, they're down in this corner and that's the problem. II
You can't build down in this corner. I think something here is a little
out of proportion. First the...rear of his house. He couldn't have a deck
so I think on this, as far as the survey goes, this portion is a little oull
of proportion. Over here...his house can't be that close.
Wing: This looks good to me. This is what I saw. I don't see anything
that close. What's your concern?
II
David Schissel: Nothing. I'm just saying, just so you know, that house
that they sketched on here, is that right?
II
Wing: Oh yeah. That's what I saw when I was out there.
David Schissel: Can the back of his house be that close? To the property"
line?
Al -Jaff: The dotted line is an easement.
II
Wing: This is the point we looked at and I agree. It's irrelevant.
David Schissel: Yeah it is. It really is. The point is Carol, the trees"
are here. There's one growing out here. When the house was built, there
were 3 of these trees exactly the same height growing right here that were.
cut down. I don't care, I'm not going to cut anymore trees down.
Absolutely not.
Watson: I can understand that. I live on a little house in the prairie. ,
David Schissel: You're correct saying 24 x 20 but just so you know, this
is 14 feet and it's 20 back this way. I've got a 6 year old. That's the II
place they play. That's the only flat land I have on this property.;
Really.
Kirk Lee: If I could add something that...we just recently bought our
house, my wife and I 9 months ago and we recently had a little baby boy an
he's now engaged to be married and his fiancee has a child and I just know
that during last summer with my wife and I, it was a wonderful place to II meet, to gather. And like he said before, it looks very nice from where
our view is and quite honestly, all of my house, the whole back of it looks
right in his house. I also find that the use of the trees, he cannot buil
a deck outside of it because he's just have to take all of those pine tree
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 10
out of there and then that would leave him with no trees whatsoever. I
don't know. You have rules and what have you but I think you have a
' situation where both of his neighbors who do view the deck, accepting it
and thinking that it's visually pleasant to look at and it's also a very
nice place to meet. I hope that he does not have to take it down.
' Johnson: Could you state your name for the record please.
' Kirk Lee: Oh' my name is Kirk Lee and I'm his neighbor to the west at 3601
Steller Circle.
Watson: We've done this. We told the gentleman his deck had to come down.
Johnson: I have no problem with the deck but it's getting to the same
thing that Richard's going to be bringing up tonight. Small lots.
' Wing: Well the one deck, he took the city on. He knew he was not in
compliance. He knew that he was in error. He had stop orders, or at least
the one that I'm thinking of, and he continued on and said, who cares and
he got caught in the process and you're right, he had to pull it back.
I didn't have any sympathy on that one.
' Watson: Well the one guy bought land to make his deck.
Wing: Yeah, okay I see.
David Schissel: I'm sorry but we looked into that. I can't buy land. I
mean Ester's house, her's was the original farmhouse...
Watson: Oh yeah. That's the Steller from Steller Circle.
Wing: Well I looked at this and I think staff was proper to deny it. I
11 think it was their only option. I think this is excessive. I think it was
an honest mistake. It's done. I'm disappointed that, you know every time
we get this, they're never subtle. They're always massive. They're always
' over kill. It's always twice as much as they needed and it makes it
questionable. But there is no back yard and what I see here is that he
more or less took a non- existing back yard and artificaliy created one. I
almost, when I walked around the house initially thought it was part of the
' structure. It simply, there's such a terrible yard, I thought it was just
part of the house when Z first went in there. Almost a foundation. And
Paul just got done commenting on something I read for tonight's Council
' meeting that people, that children tend to play in the back yard, not the
front. There is no front yard. There's no yard here at all and so this
deck really becomes his playground in the backyard for child or
children, whatever the case is. I also found that it blended well. It's
out of view, the trees completely obscure it from the street. It certainly
could be cut back. We could cut back, it would be nice if it wasn't such a
big deck. We could easily cut it back 5 feet easily and with .almost no
' hardship but we still have a variance required. I think the city policy is
clarifying these situations and I guess after some of the variances, that
variance we gave tonight with that monster garage going out there and some
of the other stuff we've done I just, I'm comfortable with this. I just
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 11
hope these things with staff's eye on them in the future, come to a halt.
So I guess I tend to vote in support of it. ,
Watson: I can't. Because we've made other people comply. We've forced
them to comply and it has cost them dearly too in fact comply with us and
they have. And this neighborhood seems to have, what shall we say, a
problem with constructing decks without getting permits. I mean this isn't
the first one. It isn't the second one. It's like the third or fourth one
where a deck has just appeared magically before our eyes and I think that I
this will set a precedent and we will have them going up, whether they hay
a permit or not. Whether they're within the zoning ordinance or not and I
don't think that somewhere along the line we have to tell people that you
bought this lot or you put this house on this lot. You now live with this
piece of property. Whatever it's size. Whatever it's configuration.
Whatever it's slope. Whatever it's tree structure. You've made a decisio
and when you made that decision, you took on all the little things you'
don't like along with that decision and I think the buck stops here.
Wing: I agree. Mr. Knight did it 30 years ago. I mean 30 years ago he '
knew what he had and he's back here not only wanting a 2 car garage, a 4
car garage and an addition to a house.
Watson: But Richard, we're talking apples and oranges here. That's not II
the same thing. We're not talking about the same thing.
Wing: No, the definition of variance. Again, I don't disagree with your 11
position. I happen to think you're right. I just think this is a
massive...
Watson: I can't go back 30 years and make Mr. Knight's house cut it. But'
something that's happened in this recent a time as this development and
we've already had endless problems with decks appearing that aren't
conforming.
Wing: I don't see him pushing anybody here at all and it is, as I said, it
is so well hidden. It's really his back yard on a lot that doesn't have all
yard at all.
• Watson: But nowhere in the variance ordinance does it say. '
Wing: I agree. It shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't have happened.
Watson: Whether it is or isn't attractive, whether it does or doesn't mall
something out of a lot. I mean somewhere along the line Mr. Schissel made
a decision to own this house on this lot. Slope and all and when he - made
that choice, he must have looked at it and saw there was no flat land. So II
I mean, it wasn't a surprise.
David Schissel: I agree but what about Mr. Wing's statement in regards to
children playing in back yards...I think that's very important in a family,
neighborhood like where we live with all the young children.
Watson: I do too but at some point in time you must have thought of that II
when you bought the land.
1
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 12
' David Schissel: I agree with you but. I totally agree with you and I am
in total agreement with ordinances and rules. That they protect us all.
There's no question about it. What nobody said to me was the setback and
' yeah, I didn't come in and get a permit and I want to say, I wasn't trying
to fool anybody. They were building a house right across the road.
' Watson: It's much too big. I believe you.
David Schissel: ..corner. They were building that house. I mean if I
was trying to fool somebody, I mean Steve must have driven by there every
day. I was not trying to fool anybody.
Watson: I don't for one minute think you were. I don't think that
necessarily any of the people.
David Schissel: So just...at this lot. Yeah, I looked at the lot and said
' hey, this lot is sitting here empty. I've lived in the area for 4 years.
I said I can do something with this lot. It was Ester's last lot that she
sold but did the City come to me and say hey look, and I think this is the
City's responsibility. This I will put back on the city and say look,
' where you put this house, when I gave them the survey, you might have
problems with a deck. Are you thinking about that? No, I wasn't. I
didn't think about that. I didn't think it would be an issue.
Watson: There's another thing for your small lot. We don't think about
these things but all of a sudden we want what isn't there.
11 David Schissel: Initially I had the deck on the plans when I sent them to
the city. Then I pulled it. Took it off entirely because I couldn't
afford it. 5o I knew the deck would come a year later.
Watson: And that's usually the case too.
Johnson: It's been the case. I agree with you, you don't have the land
but this goes back to what Carol has said too. These small lots, you put
the house on them and then they want to expand a year later and we've got
problems.
Wing: Carol, this deck is fairly massive and if there was 5 feet pulled
off, it would kind of be less massive. It still would not comply and to
' comply .would be no deck at all. I think David's right. To pull back to a
level of, to the proper setbacks accomplishes nothing for him. The City.
The house. It's kind of like allowing Andersons and Knights to suddenly
I add a 2 car garage onto these nightmare homes out here with no lots at all.
I mean what's the point of it except it puts the house•up to compliance.
And this deck sort of, I don't know, I can't argue with you because you're
clearly, clearly right. Just on the flexibility I'm seeing and some of the
' over ruling. I don't think because it's done. Because of the money
involved. Because he has stopped work on it when these issues came up, I
think he's tried to comply. It's an obvious question of here it is. I'd
' like to just leave it. Yes I made a mistake and I guess I'm not going to
ask that he take it out but I agree with you and I don't know where to draw
the line. It's getting confusing to me.
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 13
11
Watson: That we're going to have an opportunity to figure just that very
question out. Where are we going to draw the line? I've got news for you
This is the last one you're going to see in that neighborhood because thos�
are big houses on not very big lots and it's going to come up and come up
and come up whether it's the garage they didn't build or the 3 season porc
they didn't put up when they built and they want now.
Johnson: Or the third garage they went and had.
Watson: Yeah you know, we're going to have an opportunity to draw the 1
line.
Johnson: Because these houses run, lot line to lot line.
Watson: Most of them don't have a great, they're big homes. They're big,
lovely homes but they didn't think about the land. ,
David Schissel: Is it possible to judge an individual piece of property as
opposed to setting a standard and enduring to that? '
Wing: We've got the standard.
Watson: The standard exists, yeah. 1
Wing: And then we go with the individual cases.
Watson: This is what this is. 1
David Schissel: That's what I mean, yeah. In other words that's what,
yeah obviously I'm in support of this so that's why I'd like to take a
little more on the individual needs as opposed to.
Johnson: And it isn't a hardship because he has use of the lot. 1
Wing: Is this a deck though? Is this a subtle deck? Is this a reasonable
structure if we're going to look at the rules? Or is this just the biggest
you could put on that lot without just going into your yard. I mean this
is a big structure. This isn't a subtle structure so we may not be
arguing.
Watson: That's what he said that he hadn't tried to hide it. It's big.
I mean you know there's no question that.
David Schissel: It blends in. When I built that, I mean they were
building right across the street. I wasn't trying to hide it. And my
house, I think my house is very nice. Sits on the lot very nicely. It's I
on a...
Watson: Absolutely.
David Schissel: I did not build one of these massive houses. It doesn't
fit. I mean as I got into this lot, yeah after I bought the lot. After I
signed my name, I started to figure out what kind of house I would build. 1
1
II - Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 14
11 I had to change from a front loading garage to a rear loading garage...
driveway. I had second thoughts and...
' Watson: You're on Willard.
' Johnson: I go along. I understand where he's coming from. I can't go
along with this variance because here's a case where we've got the same
problem again. We've got, it boils down to this small lot. We've got a
house that covers the whole lot. I realize he had to design the house to
fit the lot. We've been fighting these lots for years saying hey, let's
get them bigger. My rule of thumb is always been squawking for years that
it's fine for a young couple that just don't have any children. When they
have children, they start getting 2 or 3 cars. When they've got 3
teenagers about say 16 and they each want a car, where do you put them on
these small lots. That's been my soapbox for years.
Wing: Require to cutback to the 25 foot setback?
Watson: I make the motion to deny the 11 foot rear yard variance for the
' existing deck, 1840 Pheasant Drive. I believe I've said enough.
Johnson: I'll second that motion. Any more discussion?
David Schissel: What's the next step?
Watson: Hold on one second.
Johnson: Any more discussion on this?
' Watson moved, Johnson seconded to deny the 11 foot rear yard variance for
an existing deck at 1840 Pheasant Drive. All voted in favor of denial
except Wing who opposed the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 2
to 1.
Johnson: Now you have to appeal. 5 days Sharmin?
Al -Jaff: He can appeal it to the Council. Their next meeting is 2 weeks
from today.
Roger Knutson: Split votes go automatically to the Council.
David Schissel: Obviously I'm going to appeal.
'
•
Johnson: You won't have to do it. It's been a split vote. It will
automatically go to Council.
David Schissel: Alright, will I get information on that?
Watson: They'll be notifying you so you know it's on the agenda.
1 Ai -Jaff: I'll be sending you a letter.
Watson: Sharmin, one more quick question before we adjourn. I want to see
whatever regulations we have on corner lot. Structures on corner lots for
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 13, 1992 - Page 15
the next time we meet. We don't have time to hash through it now but
that's some big questions on that subject too. So if you'd bring anything"
in the ordinance that addresses directly with corner lots.
Watson moved, Wing seconded to close the public hearings. All voted in 1
favor and the motion carried. The public hearings were closed.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor 1
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i CI TY O F =
,.JA DATE: Sept. 25, 1989
i U AA7 � C.C. 1 � ii r SS
�. CASE NO: 89 -12 Variance
1 Prepared by: A1 Jaff /v
1 STAFF REPORT .
1 ,
PROPOSAL: A 9 Foot Rear Yard Variance For an Existing Deck
1 and a 2 Foot Rear Yard Variance for an Existing
Deck
1 Q
LOCATION: 1710 Teal Circle
CL
• - -
�. .
1 Q APPLICANT: William Febry
1710 Teal Circle G
Excelsior, MN 55331 _ _ _ Z'2 _
1
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development
1 ACREAGE: .345 acres
DENSITY: ,
1 ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
1 Q S- PUD; single family
toe 1 a
E- PUD; single family
W- PUD; single family
1 J±!
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
II PHYSICAL CHARAC.: The site is heavily wooded.
II 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
. ._
w. N. 1
_......_.._
r
C . 1
BN
Q o 0
O M N g 8 $ O 1 MI
8 N ID
N N N' N !V •
co
N I
- MAN •R RO -......0M111111/ , (� - - -
OVES ` � 1.1■ ...-ate 411 .4e0rikrial ligill
A - 0 s Os ier( . ill 'Tr: #..) A °I "i■ AIL AOANIIILW iiir iw--wi
�1.. ( ∎ o rs. , :g_ �l 1 .5. 1 1V 4 P V
JIM f �P it 1C1 . MIME ? _./.4. -
OI BM 1,..‘r
+ - -- �■n' C � KCIE�CIRC
• b. - No 6. '
LAKE ■
- * ,\ , jii IrTgail
C W L GG I M O .... ,.....,,,1.1.71.211 ; if
, '` RR
• • 1 0
'� _ CA E e 1
�� N it R R/ SON %... . ill
-- "■., X a
RItf
..,.„.....,_
cm .
i
4:
i ,= J
44,• "r' 4. ; I O
- :;* / . - , :
I , 1
:,t 41 0 1 1
zi
1
WILLIAM FEBRY VARIANCE
SEPTEMBER 25, 1989
BACKGROUND:
II The City of Chanhassen received a complaint regarding a deck
built 16 feet from the rear yard lot line, located at 1710
Teal Circle.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20 -615 of the Zoning Ordinance' requires a 30 foot
setback for a rear yard (Attachment #1).
Section 20- 908 -d. of the Zoning Ordinance allows unenclosed
decks to project 5 feet into the rear yard (Attachment 02).
ANALYSIS
' The applicant lives at the existing home at 1710 Teal Circle.
The lot has two existing decks which were built before
applying for a building permit. The two decks are at
different levels. The upper deck which has dimensions of 20
feet in width and 14 feet in depth, requires a 9 foot rear
yard setback variance. The lower deck which has dimensions
' of 14 feet in width and 14 feet in depth, requires a 2 foot
rear yard setback variance. The upper deck and lower deck
are connected by a stair case (Attachment 3). Both decks
' require minor structural alteration to meet minimum building
code. The adjacent lot located to the west of the lot in
question is screened by a continuous row of fully grown trees
' and shrubbery.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and
the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
1 following hardship and practical difficulty.
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would
cause undue hardship and practical difficulty.
* The literal enforcement of the Ordinance will not cause
1 undue hardship or practical difficulty on the applicant.
The applicant has full use of the property.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions
' and circumstances which are peculiar to the land and
structure involved and which are not characteristic of
or applicable to other lands of structures in the same
' district.
* It would have been possible to meet the required rear
' yard setbacks and a variance would not have been
required had the applicant used the upper deck as a 5
1
foot vide walk way that would lead to the love deck, 11
and had the lower deck 12 feet deep instead of 14 feet.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights.
* The applicant has use of the property.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a
consequence of a self- created hardship.
* The circumstance is a self- created hardship. Had-the
applicant followed the proper procedure by applying for
a building permit, staff would have aided the applicant
and recommended an alternative for the proposed design.
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely
affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of
the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is
situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Ordinance.
•
* Although the adjacent property is protected by fully 1
grown trees and shrubbery, approval of this variance
will not be in keeping with the spirit of the Zoning
Ordinance. 1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending denial of Variance Request #89 -12 for a
9 foot and 2 foot rear yard variance as shown on the site
plan dated February 24, 1989.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zoning Ordinance - Section 20 -615 1
2. Zoning Ordinance - Section 20 -908
3 Application.
4. Existing Features and Proposed site plan dated February
24, 1989.
5. Letter from complainant dated July 24, 1989.
1
1
1
1
.
1
' ZONING § 20 -631
Sec. 20 -614. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article III.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5 -5-4), 12- 15-86)
' State law reference — Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20 -615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
' The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
• (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de -sac
' shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line.
- ' (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty ( v feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and av
p ed surfaces is twenty -five (25) C •
percent. •
' (5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
' c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
' a. For the principal structure, three (3) storiesiforty (40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5 -5 -5), 12.15 -86)
Secs. 20- 616 -20 -630. Reserved.
ARTICLE �� ��
ICLE XIII. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1 Sec. 20 -631. Intent.
The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single- family and attached residential
' development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5 -6 -1), 12-15-86)
1209
1
§ 20 -907 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
towers, chimneys, smoke stacks, flag poles, masts and aerials; communication transmis-
sion towers; parapet walls extending not more than four (4) feet above the limiting
height of the building. .
(2) Places of public assembly in churches, schools and other public and semi- public
buildings, provided that these are located on the first floor of such building and
provided that for each three (3) feet by which the heights of such building exceeds the
maximum height ' therwise permitted in the district, its side and rear yards shall be
increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards
required for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10 12- 15-86)
Sec. 20 -908. Yard regulations.
The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measure-
ments shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question,
subject to the following qualifications: 1
(1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed.
(2) A yard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the 1
provisions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space
for another building.
(3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard
setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner Iot; provided,
however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks.
(4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets.
Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street.
(5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions:
a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line,
cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance 1
not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not
exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings
may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing
shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies,
open orches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet;
unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and
shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be
permitted by conditional use permit.
c . The above -named features may project into any required yard adjoining an
interior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above,
c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence
on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location
provided that- any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a
ten -foot minimum front yard.
1232
1
1
I (-
ZONING § 20.910
d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20 -904, the following are permit.
ted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory struc-
tures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balco-
nies, breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one -story
bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 11, 12- 15-86)
Sec. 20 -909. Outdoor storage.
As otherwise regulated, all outdoor storage is prohibited except:
(1) Clothes line poles and wires.
(2) Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the premises.
(3) Swings, slides and other play equipment.
(4) Outdoor furniture and lawn and garden equipment.
1 (5) Wood for burning in a fireplace, stove or furnace rovided '
P it is stored as follows. .
a. In a neat and secure stack, not exceeding four (4) feet.
' b. The wood stack is not infested with rodents.
c. The wood is not kept in a front yard.
' (6) Continued storage of boats, all- terrain vehicles and snowmobiles may be stored in the
side or rear yard behind the required front setback.
1 (7) Outside storage of tires is prohibited.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 13, 12- 15 -86)
Sec. 20 -910. Storage of recreation vehicles.
1 Recreational vehicles may be parked p d or stored in a residential or agricultural district
provided the following conditions are met:
(1) No more than one. (1) recreational vehicle may be parked or stored outside
residential lot. Additional recreational vehicles may be kept within an enclosed
' structure which otherwise conforms to the zoning requirements of the district.
(2) Recreational vehicles must be maintained in a clean, well -kept, operable condition.
(3) Recreational vehicles shall be mobile and shall not be permanently affixed in the
ground in. a manner that would prevent removal.
(4) Recreational vehicles may be parked or stored only on the rear or side yard behind
' the required front yard setback. The parking or storage of recreational vehicles on
the rear or side yard, as permitted herein. may be on surfaced or unsurfaced areas.
(5) Recreational vehicles may be stored on a lot without regard to the location on the lot
for the sole and express purpose of loading and unloading for a period not to exceed
twenty -four (24) hours.
1 1233
1
.. •
• 1
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
-7-
APPLICANT: NntIV.It -- V*) t1 Rbti OWNER : 1 N Cki\Cy t B k i 1 Febty
ADDRESS 111 0 lea 1 C_t ( Lit ADDRESS V11 0 TM t Ct fct e-
1
E.4 ckAcia 5..c 3 5 i El. c_e_k s■ 0 e 5S3 1
, 4 , Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) ) q/ R I a 1 TELEPHONE Lilq- tot I
REQUEST:
I Zoning District Change
_ _____ Planned Unit Development
_ Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
I
Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan
Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision 1
Land Use Plan Amendment
_ ____ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
1
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME \Ai '‘ \\ i a vt , 4 /\ck ce1) /
• PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION '61& - F P U ID _ s
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION .ecr P R
1
PRESENT ZONING • . P U D —
REQUESTED ZONING I tS T :— P k 5 _ 1
USES PROPOSED 00(tomce -6-( .R. li 5-1-ix) 1 de cl
.../
I
SIZE OF PROPERTY 461 - 3r a rIE 15 . 01 3 4 S(p P.
LOCATION 11 1 n Ten I Circl-C,
1
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST se+bnc..1( V a v t an c e, - 1 - 73 Kpp.f)
is-V-sIns3 o k, e , c , _
LAHhic-V\ wo6 VyA wlthovA ( mil
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) 5e e. (l-H-ozheili 1
„...._,.....;.. ,.„ ....0 1
AUG 2 9 MS
1
art OF CHANHASSEN
City of Chanhassen
•
Land Development Application
Page 2
' FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
I plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application.
' FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances.
1 Signed By y ?r{ A _ - i � �i Date j-
• ( licant
1
' The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
• authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
1
Signed By Date
Fee Owner
1
Date Application Received O
Application Fee Paid . 4 67
1 City Receipt No. A1547 �+ ,
1
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
•
1
1_
. .
. : I " ...111.11.1"111111.11
. 4 .
III
*•■
. . •
1
• •••
t i is
•
• S 2 i ■ .1 b.
c 8;11 41
r . : C ...) / 2
...0....
q..
Ers1
• 4,0 • e P f.f e
, ,,, •
- , 6668d
r■ P4.' t
1 4 * . t. , \./ 0 p :••••••:,
• , ..),/„*) IS?.. ! i li
./
4..
1.,"
\ , \ ' 1
\ ,t'' 1115
\ 1 ,
\ , • . • -
• \ / • .
\' ■
t .C- \ \ C ' . . • \ 0 ' ; :., i
I C
-ft - 1 . ,
a ,
• .. - -:-.....4:4°
.....--------,
, --:-...._ .....4-•
' , L 'C'• - '7.-: - - -- --- e: . : 4 ' ,,;.
0
. c4,,,, • ..., cil
4•1> •
• /,‘ I ‘."--- i v I raw y \
p / T ay.,. '
0 6 • " ---_ .....- ‘Rts
1. In 2 .
/ /
iS i f i z ;°‘
1'2 v.
- ' • c
r .... . ?
0 5 4' e- - - - -- -0- F.'._
3 /
q...: . 1
eik /PG E . ._ !
i 7 02 0, •• x rt ‘ \ ........
../
/1" /
'I 1/ ZZ 29 • cl
i‘n
g‘• / h.,
c‘J s;--....-,
, .7(77_,
\ --. ----
/ P s.-0, v Z.,•eg Z. If- . \
•
'Ci"c2o'it
../ .. -
. i mt . /c,/,` 4 i 3 ■J
/ ,
I' III 11 ' ow.
I ..,....
0 \
.... . •
■ '' .../ . - Z 0/
tv.,, _:, • el
\NT ,
1 L
, ,4 •:- - - G.,e;Vd--'d .!;'Z - )=;+ /V /// - y: I
. s —
,e, .. ‘
,.
...
..... _ _ . _ - -- - - /4„ ,s c 6._4
4..,e.. - _ .. -- - -
• '
......Z 0
, d ..i._
..6"
. .. • . , . • . . .
. .
. . • • .
. . .
. .
• • . . . . . •
• .
1 . . . . ., • • , • • . •
.. . , , ,
• . . .... . • . .
. .
.. .
. • . ' . i
. . . •• . . . .
• . .. . ..
: • . '. . . • : . : . . . . .
. . .
. .
. • . • .
. .
: ... .. . . • . • . . . .
. .
. • •,: , , . . .. . . .
. .
...._ ' .. ___ ! _._ J_ __ '.. .. '.. _ _ _ ' . _ _ _ . . . . . •
. .
. • : 1_ I I ! ; . •
I ! I . .
. •
. - . • • — 10 ' , • Your Morgan Doorman
- i-- , - - •
• ; . .
I ...: ..'' . . • '. ---- t ___ 1 .. L„ __....., _....L._ Tom Nye __'.___..jI! ,_ ' __;___'_- • . . .
- -V Wif . ■ 1
- -- 24 II ge , --'-•
11 • • * - .. i
, .
4 :e..• 1 ftli ir'1s SCN ' ft i41 L 1) ) NOr _TN sP/PEPT
- --,---
.. . . .
. . .... . •, . . . I .1.*_Iv4api i /:7 4 I
. n ey • Cavceyeev_.,'____Lrwayie___;___ _. .
.• - • .. . ' 2/,:it_ 1 __. I 0 . o•LA. f2L-c-ri. cp.. /v6. 0.8.76-73/1- ;st-r
• • • 1 A..,
•_..L.firvx_pr ,_ 4)R. /9/44 ; pme-op r DEJC
1: .- .. .
- rvly 4 177TYZ 17))--4-1E- a F _rn.r ..._€7.0v
_ ___ 6" : _ c/rece5 PHC /1/h
I : • ' . -----•' ---Z 4 .Z". Cdiww,"' elifhv*" zsee his hatfrF ere .DR
.._ _...7C /71r Pro:Peb* ,..-kais- d,,/,, .7-01/4) hv
,
_,_._d ..,,., a As- Are,066.z, ,),,,, 4/' i)c-c-A
I _ ,,
• ! ig tll) ciofr,•,,J,F eel i(c AA/ Zry, kle//1 .4 //,//
1 ••• • sword/ iv's: sego ref/ itoleol d c'efy,o4Ad 44/
IVQ Ca vs r / e e r -re, /Sort c19` /70' Ave
• /tv II) re/r,F So .6ahr7r, .0,.■ . #e 7 i 7 mr kilK Ai,-
...
/" e ttelvt e vs c/afF slr /Imre Aeory 1/
I • , / 5. G 1 71a 4 v 4 1 9 * POck. .„44C 0644ic4 AO"
he i.,/ res-diveoi,o. Mg. k4471 44s i orno, re d 7 A ( cdrelQi.
. ...
'-', - •
1 4 iivoli//44s 7 4// ' /- .
• vfn .4.- •,\...:
• ; L.7/.'...s Of i3s/L4 7 tv*vcii i'L PC .
• • ,...... -
• .
,
' -- ....- - - •
•
. . ,
• ,
, .
1 . ' -1----.:---- - ---t---- - - , - - . _ .
! , /69.
.. .
, ._ .. _ ___ ........ .. . •....
1 . • i , i .
• - ----- - • -- —
• N 0 FIGAN '
- - _ _ ..
1. - - - . - - Mor an Products Ltd. - '
rg . .
- _ i . .
• , - - - - -
. _
I .' .-_____-. _-_ _ ..-_-_-__—___ _____--- -_—_ _ ___ , • ,_
... • •• • • . .... - 1 ; ..
. . .. .
• . • • • • :
. .
I. .. .
,
. •
• • -
. -., .
City Council Meeting - ?tether 25, 1989
II
that not understanding codes, ordinances, or anything that you folks deal with
I
on a regular basis, we don't ask the types of questions that someone in the
business normally would nor did we anticipate this. When I met with the
builder, I explained the type of home that we wanted. We looked at it and I
also at that point in time, based on his pricing of a deck, indicated to him
II
that there was a family member who could build a bigger and nicer deck and he
agreed with that and said fine. That's why it never appeared on the plan. At
` the same time, the developer was fully aware of our intentions. The size of
II
hare. The type of deck that we wanted built and at no time did either party
indicate to Nancy or myself that this would be a problem on this piece of
property. If in fact that would have been the case ladies and gentlemen, we
II
would have not purchased this piece of land because this was to be our dream
hone. Again, we're not aware of how fax back you had to be building a deck to
the lot line and so on. I would have found a different lot and I told the
developer that and I told the builder that. It's a little late now but
II
unfortunately we closed on the home and everyone has been paid and we're here in
front of you tonight. We have a couple of nice decks there. It's not that we
have such a large family that we need two decks but we had intended on building
II
a screened in porch on the upper deck. That's why it's as big as it is and
maybe eventually make it into a four season porch or whatever. That
necessitated another deck, a lower deck that we could spend some time outside
with. That's essentially the situation. You've seen the deck. It's all
I
redwood. The bill we got from Scheer Brothers was $2,000.00 for materials plus
my brother -in -law's airfare here and a few beers on the side. That's where
we're at so when we got this notice, first we were upset and we didn't
II
understand what had happened and we called the builder and of course they -
informed us that yes, that we have a problem on our hands and I also contacted
the developer and of course they said, yes we have a problem on our hands so by
- golly, we have a problem on our hands. They were right. So they were upfront II
about that but we're here and we've got some neighbors that own property
adjacent to ours. As you've seen out there, it's wooded and I certainly don't
want to be that close to my neighbors and appreciate the privacy that we have
II
so. I don't know if you'd like to hear from a few of these folks, we'll try to
keep it short. I notice the last thing on the agenda this evening was
shortening meetings so I want to certainly try and set the example and move
II
along here so thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
II
Tom Nye: My name is Tom Nye. I live at 1641 West 63rd Street. I have 1,000
feet that is adjacent to Pheasant Hills 4th Addition. My property abuts np
against Mr. Febry's. I have in the past been most vocal about some things that
have happened in Pheasant Hills that I've found disturbing but at no time have
I ever found any phase of construction of W. Febry's obtrusive at all. In
fact, I can't even see this deck from my property at any point just by his
property being adjacent. Closer examination shows it to be a real asset to the I
community and I feel he's being singled out in that neighborhood when there's
probably other cases that might be more objectionable. There's no objection
from me who has probably more at stake on that one section than anybody else
II
except his immediately neighbor behind him so there's nobody that objects to it
t and I question who called in the first place.
Jim Flowers: My name is Jim Flowers. I'm at 1721 Wood Duck Circle and I'm the II
one that's adjacent to him in the back. In fact my deck looks at his deck in
55 II
II
City,Council Meeting - Se .:fiber 25, 1989
kid of a way except for there happens to be about 50 feet of woods. If you've
' been out there, you've taken a look at that and I happen to think the deck is a
1
very nice addition also. It is redwood. It fits in with the trees and it's far
enough apart that we're not looking at each other all the time but I. think if
' you had to build kind of this funny looking little line deck, I'm not sure what
Bill could put up there that would look as nice as what he's got there now.
I think there's no problem with it as far as I'm concerned and I am the one that
' probably is affected by it more than anybody else.
Mike Kester: I'm Mike Kester and I'm going to be living at 1641 and I think
that when Tom Klingelhutz had that development, he didn't know it was going to
' be quite as good as he anticipated and I feel that it's a real asset to their
house. With wooded area behind, I don't think there'd be any problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: First I'd like to ask Roger about the pending legislation.
' Do we know how pending that pending legislation we've been discussing the last
few times regarding variances?
' Roger Knutson: Yes. I have testified before a legislative mini- session down in
Rochester on the pending lard use bill. And interestingly, the only issue, the
only two issues in the whole darn bill that got everyone's interest up and one
was variances. The other was impact. Variances was the hottest issue there.
I'm not a phrophet but I would anticipate, I shouldn't even say this because you
never know what the legislature will do but I'll go out on a limb and say I
think there's every reason to believe that a bill will be passed this session,
' but I don't know that.
Councilman Work4nan: For what? To do what?
' Roger Knutson: To rewrite the whole land use law. One of the things that would
be rewritten is the variance provision and as drafted now, and I don't know
what's going to happen to it, but as drafted now, in addition to the present
situation where State Statutes say what the requirements are for a variance,
they're going to say, or such other conditions as the City Council may put into
their own ordinances. Give you really the right to state when you want to grant
an ordinance.
' Mayor Chmiel: men will this be formally? Is this with the tax bill too that's
caning through?
Roger Knutson: No.
Mayor Chmiel: It's coming up next legislative session?
Roger Knutson: Yes. It was introduced last session. Last March. It's still
be studied. Lots of people are looking at it. Generally people are in favor of
the idea.
•
Councilman Johnson: We're talking next year ?.
' Roger Knutson: Yes .
56
1
City Council Meeting - - ntember 25, 1989 ,
Mayor Chmiel: Doesn't really help us right now though? '
1r
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman Johnson: For those of you listening and wondering what we're talking
about, the State requires, controls when we can and can't grant a variance
because they make the laws. These are the laws. These are the standards. It's
like speed limit laws. The State says such and such a street has to have a 30
mph speed limit. We're not allowed to go in there and give it a 50 mph or 25
mph. We have to give it a 30. The State does the same thing with variances and
land uses. If you sat through it earlier, they went through those 5 conditions.
For us to grant a variance we have to find that those all 5 conditions have been
met.
Councilman Workman: Were the footings put in by the builder for this deck? '
Bill Febry: Yes they were.
Councilman Johnson: Which builder?
Bill Febry: ...I mentioned earlier to the committee that this is the first hone
that he has built in Chanhassen. I'm not here to speak for him because he's in
the business obviously and I'm not but the footings were put in prior to final
inspection. Again, I wish someone would have said something to me then because
I wouldn't have invested the money and the time in what I have. I would have 11
11. tried to, in lieu of the fact that I already bought the property and the home,
designed something differently.
_ Councilman Johnson: Were they on the blueprints?
Bill Febry: No. I guess if you discussed it with the builder and the developer
and they don't say anything about it and they know what's happening, the we're
kind of caught. That's why we're a little disgruntled over it. Not so much
with the political process but with the fact that you invest a great deal of
money, at least for us, in something that is to be an exceptional piece of
property and ownership and two groups don't came forward and tell you the whole
story. That's tough..
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I was thinking about this quite a little bit this evening
•
and I even had to sit down and write something. It's not really going to help
you but it at least expresses my feelings on this. I wish there were a way that
we could accommodate that variance. I really do because I know there's a lot of
hard work and a lot of thought put into what you did. What I basically had
written down here is that we may think that we live in a world where anything
goes but if we didn't follow rules of laws, etiquette, grammar, life would be
really sort of harsh. Rules make life sort of warm and easier and secure. I
find that Chanhassen is like every other community and we have to really abide
by what rules we have. We have stopped people from building decks. People who
wanted to put on additions because of this side yard variances and so on.
I guess that really is where I'm coming from. Not as much as I'd like to. I'd
much rather see you accommodated with what's there. Let me ask another
question. By 9 feet, this is a 14 foot depth and 9 feet off that, that would
only leave that deck 5 feet right? That's not going to be worth having.
57
City Council Meeting - Se -fiber 25, 1989
' Paul Krauss: That's true Mayor. The northern deck, or the lower one. The one
that's behind the garage, could be larger because the home is canted from the
back property line.
' Mayor Chmiel: And I was out there and I looked at that. It's well constructed.
There's no question in my mind. I wish mine were as well constructed.
Bill Febry: I'll give you his business card. You can fly him up. We11, if I
could add something else. In the future, if there's some way that the City
could figure out how to be a bit more of an informant to people from out of
state or out of the Twin Cities area to let than know that there are, when
' developers are in the business to make money like everyone else. .I sat and
listened to the gentleman before this and all I thought of was boy, I'd like to
get up and ask him if there's room enough on each one of those lots for people
' like Nancy and I to build the type of home and deck that we would like. I
wanted to ask him that but of course it wasn't my place or time but the point
I'm making is, I don't know how you could address this for people in the future
but it certainly would avoid people like us, and I understand through Ursula
' earlier on that we're not the only ones. There have been several people that
have faced this so it is a problem and it's an ethics problem as far as I'm
concerned. These people that are in the business. We would have bought a
' different lot. That's how simple that is.
Councilman Workman: I think the variance system is actually not bad at all. We
' don't have a variance system. We're not giving out variances. We don't have
flexibility. We're not doing anything. We've had long time residents of this
community that I'd like to do nothing better than to give them 2 feet but we
weren't. I'd like to say welcome to the community and say yes, that'd be very
' easy for me and I think this is all supposed to be set up so that it is easy for -
me to make the decision to say no, forget it you know but it's not. It doesn't
make it any easier. Case by case, piece by piece, we've again charged people
' for an application for a variance which they probably didn't have a chance in
all get out of getting. So the warning needs to go up there too. Not that we
can tell you hey, forget it because they're not going to do it. Here's the
line. You can't build over it and the Board of Adjustments is going to deny it
and then we're going to reinforce the Board of Adjustments and that's the way it
is. I received more than one call from somebody, from folks on the other side
of the fence saying you're going to do it for one, do it for all. That's again
' supposed to make it easy. I've been on the Council for 8 months, 9 months, and
I'm actually only 14. I look older now. But boy I can see the faces of the
folks that were supposed to have, wanted the same thing who have lived here for
' years. They're going to line up outside that door and say what's going on. But
again, I'm disappointed for you and for us in that we really, where I think
we're supposed to have some flexibility, we don't have it. The only advice I
can give you is after the legislature here passes their law, save your lumber.
I We can put it up. Again, I'm disappointed for you. I'm sure it's beautiful. I
didn't have to go out there quite frankly. 1 didn't have to go out there and
I look because I knew what was going to happen so it's disappointing. It's money
ill spent for the variance. Did of preaching. Let's deny these people. Put
than out of their misery and let than go home and go to bed.
Councilman Johnson: Include a refund of the variance fee?
' 58
City Council Meeting - 'tember 25, 1989 II
1
17 Councilman Boyt: No. Can't. Too much staff time. How are you going to do
that? And I think the staff, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when you
brought in this application, staff said to you it's not the kind of thing that's II going to be approved. That's what they're supposed to tell you. Is that what
they told you? But you didn't have a choice. If I had $2,010.00 into that
deck, I certainly would have paid my $75.00 and given it a shot but staff
II
- routinely Tam advises people of what their chances probably are and we've been
pretty consistent on this so I think it's easy for staff to give you an idea.
Bill Febry: I understand what you're saying. I just have one more question and II
I don't mean to sound argumentive here but I'm a firm believer in uniform
enforcement also and I'm not asking for special favors and so on tonight. I
understand the situation here. However, if it's going to be uniform, then it II
should be and what I've seen and been told, not by any legal counsel but at this
point, that things were overlooked and not everyone is checked into as far as
permits and distances and things like that. Again, I'll drop it at that point
I
but it should be uniform and I appreciate, my wife and I, your efforts to be
upfront about those things. I would only ask that the rest of than out there
that are totally cognizant of what's happening and what should and shouldn't II happen ought to be looked at in length.
Councilman Johnson: It's difficult to find, when somebody doesn't, somebody has
to turn you in basically. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, remember I said that at our Board of Adjustment
meetings. We would never have came looking for it but since there was a
II
complaint registered, staff had to look into it and they had to bring it before
us.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know how many basements have been finished in this II
city without a permit. How many decks have been built. In the 2 1/2 or 2
years, 9 months, whatever I've been here, we've seen quite a few of then came in
that have been built and later came back. In fact we're going to see one on
II
Lotus Lake aren't we?
Councilman Boyt: In all frankness, one of the complaints that I received is II that the City hasn't been looking. The residents that have complained to me,
and there haven't been a great many but there's been more than 5 or 6 in the
last year, who've said why isn't the City out enforcing this? Why did you have
to wait until I called in order to respond to this and it's everything from
II
erosion control barriers being down to decks. I think that if we're going to
enforce it, that means that we enforce it. We don't close our eyes to a
situation that City staff or one of us sees. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I've had some discussions here with Don. Maybe you can just...
Don Ashworth: If I hear what the City Council is saying, number one, you feel 1
for the applicant in terms that there's a number of things that have occurred
regarding this permit process which if we had local flexibility we might feel
differently about. In other words, the sentiment of the neighbors as it applies
I
L to the deck. The circumstances as it dealt with the peunit issuance and
recog nizing the move fr s I also hear the Council sa yi ng , vry
correctely that th eir hands a e tied in terms of S Statute as it currently II
written. The only alternative that I can come up with, I did visit very shortly
59 1
' City .Council Meeting - Se, Aber 25, 1989
with the attorney on, I would see the Council's action really being one of
denial of the variance but in that process instructing staff not to pursue the
literal enforcement against the property owners for a period of time. I will
' pick out a one year period of time and during that one year period of time, if
Roger is correct and the legislature does make amend to the land use section of
State Statute and if that amendment process provides you with the flexibility
' that Roger was discussing, then we can cane back and deal with the issue as it
would apply to these owners and would give us a little more flexibility at that
point. Again, I think that the specific action would have to be one of denial.
There would have to be agreement reached with the owner where we would put in
writing basically what is occurring, and that would ensure sane protections back
to the City so that tomorrow you don't sell the home and 2 weeks from today
we're dealing with a new owner. Totally unsuspecting. Whatever. I don't kAow
' if that solution in any way will work. I do not know if Roger's prediction that
the legislature will make that change or not but potentially it could at least
put the order stay for a period of time to find out whether or not the
legislature will make that change or not. Again, I don't know if that's
'
something.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying we aren't going to prosecute for a year?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
•
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're safe for a year.
Councilman Workman: Is the deck completed?
' Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah.
IL_
Councilman Workman: But you don't have it screened in?
' Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: You might want to hold off.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. You can't add anything to the deck. I think if you
asked Roger, in fact I'll ask him so he can tell you. What impact, no matter
' what the legislature changes, what impact will neighbor opinion have on our
ability to either grant or deny a variance?
Roger Knutson: None.
Councilman Boyt: So we're going to have to come up with same kind of criteria
and I don't think that's going to be easy. I think that's why we've got the
' State gave us the ones that they did is there just isn't an easy way to be
flexible on these consistently.
Don Ashworth: That may be true.
Councilman Boyt: I've no problems with giving a 1 year extension or however you
word that but i just would hold out no hope.
Mayor Chmiel: In the event that it doesn't happen, then something has to be
' done.
60
• City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
II
1
I
Councilman Johnson: I think that it's interesting and I'd like our Code II
Enforcement people to look into the fact that the builder built the foundations
for this in the rear yard setback. As a professional builder, he should know
better, and see what we have for that action taken beyond the building permit
that was issued to him. The fact that our staff didn't notice the foundations II
out back when they're inside doing the final inspections. It does not relieve
the builder of any liability in any case but generally when you have a violation
of a law or an ordinance, code enforcement should be involved instead of zoning
II
is my opinion anyway. If you're parked someplace, me get zoning involved
trying to change it to a parking area. Code enforcement gets involved. Public
safety gets involved and issues a parking ticket. 1
Councilman Workman: I'd move denial of the variance with a one year extension
for this already built deck until leadership from the State is relaxed.
Mayor Chmiel: With the additional conditions that Don had mentioned within II
there. Indicating that hopefully you don't sell that hone, that it goes to
another property owner. If it does, it has to be removed for that with sane
II
kind of condition in it.
Bill Eabry: My interpretation of that is if the legislation'is pending, during
that one year time frame...
Mayor Chtmiel: And is passed, then you're in good shape.
Don Ashworth: It would have to came back to the City Council and establish II
local rules and that may still not help you but it sounds as though the Council
would sure like to give it a try and see if they can't find something to help
II
you.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to deny the request for a rear 1
yard setback variance for an existing deck at 1710 Teal Circle with a 1 year
extension for enforcement with the condition that if the property is sold during
that time, the deck shall be made to conform to city ordinances. All voted in
II
favor and the motion carried.
M IC
( / CONSIDER PETITION TO DELETE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS IN CURRY FARMS ADDITION.
.3 ,,1P, - II
mil! Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that we're probably not going to
get past item 7 tonight and maybe we can mention that to anyone who would be
waiting for the other items. 1
Mayor Chmiel: If you ever get back to item 12, those are same of the concerns I
have which is how to shorten agendas. 1
Lori Sietsena: The City recently received a petition from the Cowry Farms
residents requesting that the sidewalk requirement be reconsidered. This item
was taken to the Park and Recreation Commission at their last meeting and there II
was quite a bit of discussion as I understand in that the bottom line, the
motion was made to delete the requirement that the sidewalk be required and
instead collect the trail dedication fees from the developer. The motion 1
carried 4 to 1.
61 1
1
CITYOF
1
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
DATE: September 20, 1990
1 SUBJ: Febry Variance /Administrative Subdivision
On Monday, September 25, 1989, the City Council denied a rear yard
variance request for a deck. The variance was an after - the -fact
1 request for a deck that had been built in the Pheasant Hills
subdivision without a building permit. The Board of Adjustments
had recommended denial and the City Council concurred two options •
were available to the applicant. They could revise the deck to
eliminate the variance br obtain additional land. However, the
City Council asked staff to delay taking action to have the deck
brought into compliance. The exchange of land took place
' administratively on August 25, 1990. No new variances result and
the original variance has been eliminated. No City Council action
is required. Enclosed you will find a copy of the quit claim deed
and the new site plan survey.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Board of
Adjustments and Appeals will hold a public hearing on Monday, March
23, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to
consider the application of David Schissel for an 11 foot rear yard
variance for the construction of a deck on property zoned PUD -R
and located at 1840 Pheasant Hill Drive.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for
public review at City Hall during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public 1
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
Phone: 937 -1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on March 19, 1992)
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
. RICHARD & J STELLER ESTHER C STELLER WILLIAM & J LEE
1 6311 STELLER CIRCLE 6311 STELLER CIRCLE 6301 STELLER CIRCLE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1 RALPH & D YEAGER ROBER & B SLATER STEVEN & M THOMAS
1830 PHEASANT DR 1820 PHEASANT DR 1810 PHEASANT DR
1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1 STANLEY & A HEINSCH DONALD & B BIERLE MICHALE & C BOMSTAD
1800 PHEASANT DR 1820 RINGNECK DR 1810 RINGNECK DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1 JOHN & M THEDINGA JOHN & K MCMURTRY MARK & D BULLER
1800 RINGNECK DR 1790 RINGNECK DR 1781 RINGNECK DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WILLIAM & S COUMBE DANIEL & S GABLER • IICHAEL & L SCHWARTZ
I 1791 RINGNECK DR 1780 RINGNECK DR 1821 PHEASANT DR
fa EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1 T KEELEY & N GRUN TIMOTHY & B PETERSON FFRE
JE Y & B LAMPHERE
1831 PHEASANT DR 1841 PHEASANT DR 1851 PHEASANT DR
1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1 JASON & S ULRICH MARK & J PRCHAL HENRY & S GJERSDAL
6420 WHITE DOVE DR 6410 WHITE DOVE DR 6431 WHITE DOVE DR
1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1 JOHN & B LANG ROBERT & M BERSET . CHARLES & P VELURE
1895 PARTRIDGE CIR 1885 PARTRIDGE CIR 1875 PARTRIDGE CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1 - - _ -- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - ___
JAMES & K SWARTZ RICHARD & D PIERCE LOWELL & A SWENSON
1 1870 PARTRIDGE CIR 1880 PARTRIDGE CIR 1890 PARTRIDGE CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
HOWARD & L JENKINS KIM & M STERN DAVID SCHISSEL
1 1900 PARTRIDGE CIR 6411 WHITE DOVE DR 1840 PHEASANT DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1
CAROL WATSON WILLARD JOHNSON RICHARD WING
7131 UTICA LANE 1660 WEST 63RD STREET 3481 SHORE DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
1
1
1
1
1
1 • •
1
- •
\\\*
A-
1
•
•
•
•
MI IIIII Ell • MR I= MN MI =I Ell =II IIIM MI ill MO MIMI ill all RIM
ii : --_-----i r::::::::111/1-...,4:11:-:...,.:7„--.
, ‘
::
se
- , /
\
s 0.0 ,A, , 41, l Zre 1 - ----- ' -, ..") ."; ... . 3 4. ■ • 7
.,... , 4
1 414411 1
-
- - ,..
\ ..,..
\ --,- 4 4%,,,,, , `''.. l ';' A • ...... 4/^j, ,
...,
1 . /
\ .?.. , • `..%
--• s ,` ‘ •
,,, . "...... ' \ .: - 4 • ' , \ ' 4. tk 't4)
.....,, tj ,
! 0: z ' , ‘-‘,. -.77.9 - r L. )
'--. E., --- / # • _
„,..„, . „, . ..., , , • '''' '
• ; ,..,...,
- e ' e s " • ,-.. 4, _ ,,„,_ - . _ 1 I / ' 6,\
.-... ..,..---__% .• / -.... ,
...„. "^.',. z / ou ‘ ..
: 0 1 ... •
- -
- ,'
'.. -
5 <. ,..:'-------- -- e , ',5- ' • , 4
48; -- ----.....,,, --------___ -•,, -, • - 5*??,,, - . .'
: :
& --..- A Z- 0 --- .5 C A'1/2c 7
-"---.9 6
-,
----, - ...--,‘• _ •• ' .
•
- ' - • ' - " ' • ■.' ,•-•.,
, , --,
-.. .., ....„, .::' ...1 /'
,,
. . ,/ '/•,' -F.-1.,-r.4 /,.." 7 .A! / - L.
• ,
•
• MMUS iron 0100■0000% 0,000100 10.000 floor elev. -
o Denotes offset stake Procord top of foundatron •l• .. t. 41 '7. 3 3. 3
- 0 000.0 Carrootee enigma elev. BENCH MARK
1000.04 Donohoe Proposed elev. ,
— Denotes *diem dreinepe , . ,
Proposed pope floor dim ../^2 nO - •
• . . /
_
I 'WON wide Mal heir 0 • trio and correct represtnishon of • survey el F de No
the Wonderers of the atior• described 400 .00 of the locanon of all o , , „
DEMARB - GABRIEL •I any, thereon and ell viable iicroechrnents, if any ftorn or on spd land ter ■_.
PRE PARED FOR:
LAND SURVEYORS. INC. 3 , rh SURVEYORS. , - / , -----
Book - Pa
19 9'
As 'weever, bil rn• 90 ,of a701
3030 KNOW Lam MO. 2/ 2 - 27 hyraoldhllAN SIVIal sr If tar , f ' DAVID SC H 1 S SE L
Plum. 012111911•011011 Mir Scale
c l el!; eir / '.. 4,
utnel g Be No
•
- -ime-"
FOUR MAJOR CONCERNS WITH STONE CREEK PROPOSAL
1. SAFETY OF TIMBERWOOD RESIDENTS DUE TO INCREASED TRAFFIC ON TIMBERWOOD DR.
2. ABRUPT TRANSITION FROM LARGE RURAL LOTS TO SMALL URBAN LOTS.
3. NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION AFTER MAJOR CHANGES TO PROPOSAL UNTIL TONIGHT.
4. SAFETY AND ZONING CONCERNS WITH PRELIMINARY STONE CREEK PLAT.
Stan Rud 2030 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen MN 55317 4 -27 -92 B: \STONE CR.EEK
1
1. SAFETY OF TIMBERWOOD RESIDENTS DUE TO INCREASED TRAFFIC ON TIMBERWOOD DR.
* WHAT IS THE SAFETY AFFECT OF A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ON TIMBERWOOD DRIVE,
CR117 AND TH5 INTERSECTIONS DUE TO ADDITION OF A HIGH DENSITY SUBDIVISION?
• NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE IMPACT OF AN ADDITIONAL 300 OR MORE CARS
(OVER 600 TRIPS PER DAY) AT THE TIMBERWOOD /CR117 INTERSECTION AND THE ALREADY
TREACHEROUS CR117 /TH5 INTERSECTION.
• DUE TO ANTICIPATED HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME, THE STAFF REPORT (APRIL 1, 1992)
RECOMMENDED RECLASSIFYING TIMBERWOOD DRIVE TO A MINOR COLLECTOR -TYPE STREET.
• THE TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS OF EXISTING RESIDENTS, AS EVIDENCED BY NEARLY ALL OF
TIMBERWOOD SPEAKING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND SIGNING A PETITION,
SHOULD BE GIVEN STRONG CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
• THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO CONNECT NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROVIDE DUAL ACCESS
TO ALL STREETS IS NOT UNIFORMLY ENFORCED IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. THERE ARE MANY
LONG DEAD ENDED STREETS IN CHANHASSEN INCLUDING:
TANADOONA /DOGWOOD DR LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR TIQUA LANE
DEER FOOT TRAIL KIOWA TRAIL FARM ROAD
DEER BROOK DR HOMESTED LANE HESSE FARM RD
2
NM MN MN - MI - MI NM i • NM MN MI = - MN MN OM -N`
2. ABRUPT TRANSITION FROM LARGE RURAL LOTS TO SMALL URBAN LOTS.
* THE ABRUPT TRANSITION FROM THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY RURAL TIMBERWOOD DEVELOPMENT
INTO THE PLANNED MAXIMUM DENSITY URBAN STONE CREEK DEVELOPMENT IS VERY TACKY TO SAY
THE LEAST. A SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL IS TO CONTROL DEVELOPMENT,
MAINTAIN AN ORDERLY TRANSITION BETWEEN DEVELOPMENTS, AND ENFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ORDINANCES.
• THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD GIVE STRONG CONSIDERATION TO THE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION (UNLIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION) TO USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS WITH LARGER LOT SIZES IN THE WOODED AREAS TO PRESERVE MORE TREES
AND ALLOW FOR A BETTER TRANSITION OF LOT SIZES BETWEEN THE RURAL SIZED 2.5 A LOTS
IN TIMBERWOOD AND THE .4 A MINIMUM LEGAL SIZED LOTS IN STONE CREEK.
• THIS TYPE OF TRANSITION WILL BE BOTH ECOLOGICALLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY BETTER
THAN THE PROPOSED ABRUPT TRANSITION. NOT CONNECTING TIMBERWOOD DRIVE WOULD
SOLVE THE LATTER CONCERN BUT NOT PREVENT CLEAR CUTTING OF 55% OF THE MATURE
WOODLAND (16 of the 31 plated wooded acres) FOR ROADS AND HOUSES.
• ALLOWING THE MINIMUM LEGAL SIZED LOTS IN THE MATURE WOODLAND HAS ESSENTIALLY
MAXIMIZED THE TREE LOSS NOT MINIMIZED IT AS REQUIRED BY THE TREE PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE. ARE WE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT PRESERVING TREES?
3
AM
3. NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION AFTER MAJOR CHANGES TO PROPOSAL UNTIL TONIGHT.
* MAJOR CHANGES WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE
PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL AND THE RESULTING PROPOSAL HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN PRESENTED
TO THE PUBLIC FOR REVIEW OR DISCUSSION.
• THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF TO
CONTINUE THIS ACTION UNTIL THE MAJOR CHANGES AND ISSUES COULD BE RESOLVED AND
DISCUSSED AT A PUBLIC FORUM BEFORE FORWARDING IT ON TO THE COUNCIL.
• IN ADDITION TO MANY GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLAN, THERE
WERE SEVERAL MAJOR ISSUES THAT EVEN THE STAFF COULD NOT AGREE ON. FOR EXAMPLE
THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE OPPOSITE TO THOSE
OF THE STAFF. ALSO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PUDs AND THEIR
RECOMMENDATION FOR A CONTINUANCE UNTIL THE REVISED PLAN COULD BE REVIEWED
WERE NOT ACCEPTED.
• THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ACTIVE PARK LAND
INCLUDING FLAT OPEN AREAS FOR BALL PARKS AND TENNIS COURTS TO SUPPORT A
ESTIMATED 300 CHILDREN WERE NOT RESOLVED AT THE MEETING.
4
UN OIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIMIIMOI 1111111=1111111ININ IIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIII
4. SAFETY AND ZONING CONCERNS WITH PRELIMINARY STONE CREEK PLAT.
* THE SAFETY CONCERNS FOR A MAXIMUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO
INNER RING SUBURBS INCLUDING SIDEWALKS OR TRAILS FOR ABOUT 300 BICYCLES, SUFFICIENT
USEABLE PARK LAND, AND A BARRIER TO PREVENT CHILDREN FROM REACHING THE RAILROAD.
• THE ONLY PLACE FOR 300 CHILDREN TO RIDE BICYCLES IS ON THE STREETS WITH 300 CARS
UNLESS SIDE WALKS OR BIKE TRAILS FOLLOW ALL STREETS.
• OVER 20 LOTS HAVE BACK YARDS ADJACENT TO THE TWIN CITY AND WESTERN RAIL ROAD
TRACKS. SOME CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SAFETY SUCH AS REQUIRING
CONTINUOUS FENCING FROM GALPIN RD TO EAST OF STONE CREEK.
• SEVERAL LOTS LOOK DOWN ONTO THE RR TRACKS AND THERE IS AN EASILY CLIMBABLE
SLOPE UP TO THE TRACKS. ALSO TELEPHONE WIRES ARE WITHIN EASY REACH FROM GROUND
LEVEL FROM SOME LOTS.
• THE TC &W RAILROAD GENERAL MANAGER TOLD ME THAT:
- THERE ARE 5 TO 8 TRAINS PER DAY AND TRAFFIC IS PLANNED TO INCREASE
- RECOMMENDED 150 FEET TO INHABITED STRUCTURES
- THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE CONTINUOUS FENCING
• THERE ARE SEVERAL WETLAND AREAS AND DRAINAGE CREEKS NOT SHOWN ON PLANS THAT
WILL MAKE SEVERAL WOODED LOTS UNBUILDABLE WITHOUT CONSIDERABLE EXCAVATION,
WHICH IS PROHIBITED.
5
• IIIIII MN OM MN MN MO MR NM IIIIII NM MN NM • E i • 1111111 NW`
MY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
* RETURN THIS PROPOSAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO HAVE
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS OF THE MAJOR CHANGES. THIS DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WILL
ALLOW RESIDENTS TO OPENLY DISCUSS MANY CHANGES TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN
FIRST SEEN TONIGHT WITHOUT THE PRESSURE OF AN IMMEDIATE CITY COUNCIL VOTE.
• THE PASSAGE OF THIS PROPOSAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT PUBLIC DISCUSSION
OF THE MAJOR CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF, AND AGAINST THE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR A CONTINUANCE UNTIL A FINAL PLAN WAS PRESENTED, DID NOT
APPEAR ETHICAL.
• THE IMPACT OF SUCH A LARGE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON BOTH THE
ENVIRONMENT AND ON NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRES AN IN DEPTH OPEN EXCHANGE
OF THE FINAL PLAN NOT AN INCOMPLETE DISCUSSION AND A RUBBER STAMP OF A PRELIMINARY
PLAN WITH MAJOR CHANGES TO BE MADE.
6