2h. Yard Variances, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. R
CITYOF
---.
1
0
4 CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
A.'f- by C.
t '
II MEMORANDUM
ITO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals/City Council = .,: -/-51
FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I __
ITHROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director . ‘ :
DATE: January 30, 1991
I SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
- James Jessup
I On March 13 , 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
Variance Request #89-1 for the front, rear and both side yard
setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was informed that his property is contaminated
I with petroleum products. Therefore, the City Building Inspector
and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The
contamination is apparently from a gasoline storage tank used for
I seaplanes operating from the lake. The Board of Adjustments and
Appeals had granted an extension on February 20, 1990. The
variance will expire on February 20, 1991, unless the owner starts
Iconstruction before that date.
Staff contacted the MPCA and spoke to Ms. Janet Barryhill on
January 28, 1991. Ms. Barryhill stated that the majority of the
I contaminated soils have been removed. The MPCA will install vents
that will test the level of vapor in the soil during the spring of
1991. At the present time, no vapor is occurring due to frozen
I ground, therefore, no vents will pick up any vapor and
consequently, the level of contamination cannot be determined. The
MPCA expects that by spring, 1991, the applicant will be able to
Iresume construction.
RECOMMENDATION
II Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be
granted. While staff supports granting the variance extension, it
should be made clear that the gas tank which was located on an
I adjoining parcel was a non-conforming use and it is staff's
position that it should not be replaced.
I
II
James Jessup Variance Extension
January 30, 1991
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from applicant.
2. Staff reports dated March 8, 1989 and February 27, 1989.
3 . City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989 and February 27,
1990.
4. Memo dated February 20, 1990.
5. Letter from Nova Environmental Services, Inc. dated February
5, 1991.
6. Letter from MPCA dated February 4, 1991.
I
11
January 16, 1991
Jo Ann Olson
Sr. Planner
City of Chanhassen,
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
RE: Variance Extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. ,
Dear Jo Ann:
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension of the
variance for the above referenced property. A year ago the City
granted an extension for this property. '
The site is still contaminated. The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency is directing the investigation for the cleanup. It _
appears doubtful that any construction will take place in 1991
given. the speed of the cleanup to date.
Therefore, I am asking for an extension of the variance for 1
another year. The cleanup process speed is beyond my control. I
am unable to build on my property due to remaining contamination.
I can be reached at 448-7148 during the day if you have any
questions. Please advise me ten days in advance of the scheduled
meeting.
Thanks for your assistance in handling this matter.
Sincerely, '
James F. Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Ct.
Chaska, MN 55318
RECEIVED
JAN 181991 '
CI I Y ur %.,1rw,r-itASSEN
i C
*P., J CITYOF
I
\ P_ _,e.,-, ClIANHASSEN
' ,_ `=-_.' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
II, V./..ea2
MEMORANDUM - -
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals -,//B-/i/
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director 1 =
- M/-4),_ -
IDATE: March 8, 1989 - _3113/15_ _ --
I SUBJ: Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence
Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks
#89-1 Variance
I This application was presented to the Board of Adjustments at
their meeting of February 27, 1989. At that time the item was
tabled by the Board of Adjustment. This item was tabled for two
I reasons . First of all, the Board cfelt that the variances seemed
to be excessive for the piece of property and the building that
was being proposed. The second reason was to request staff to
II look at other variances along take Riley Boulevard and provide a
summary of what variances have been allowed in that area.
In response to the first reason, the applicant has submitted
t ; revised plans for the property. The changes to the requested
setback variances are as follows.
I Front setback - To be 17 feet at the closest point from the
front property line. The driveway itself would be 18} feet long
at its shortest point and 21 feet long at the longest point be-
tween garage and the edge of the right-of-way. These distances
are adequate to allow vehicles to pull off the right-of-way and
park in front of the garage.
I Side Setback East Side - The required setback is 10 feet.
Previously, the applicant had asked for a 5 foot variance on the
east side. The revised plans show the required 10 foot setback
on the east side. No variance would be required on the east edge
of the property.
Side Setback West Side - The required setback is 10 feet. The
t original plan submitted showed a 1 foot setback from the property
line to the edge of the deck and a 6 foot setback from the prop-
erty line to the edge of the house. After the staff report was
I written, the applicant had submitted a revised plan dated
February 22, 1989, which showed a 10 foot setback on the west
property for the house and a 6 foot setback for the deck. The
t
I
t
Board of Adjustments I
March 8 , 1989
Page 2 I
latest revised plan dated March 6 , 1989, on the west side indica-
tes
a 5 foot setback from the property for the building as well
as the deck. This results in a 5 foot variance to the side yard
setback on the west side of the property. Previously, the appli-
cant had noted the potential for doing a land trade with the
adjacent property owner on the west to align their property line
with the existing fence on the west side of the property. If the
properties were to agree to move the lot line over to the
existing chain link fence, the resulting setback on the west side
at the closest point to the building would increase to approxima-
tely 7i feet.
Rear Setback - The required setback along Lake Riley is 75 feet
from the high water mark. The applicants have revised their
building plans to eliminate the porch on the rear of the building
which on the previous plan encroached into the 75 foot setback.
The latest plan shows the rear of the structure being right on
the 75 foot setback and a 10 foot deck extending into the 75 foot
setback along the rear of the property. The deck is considered a
structure and would require a 10 foot variance to the rear yard
setback for its construction.
Lot Coverage - This lot is approximately 7,500 square feet. The
maximum lot coverage in the RSF District is 25%. This translate
to 1,875 square feet that can be devoted to lot coverage on the
property. Lot coverage includes all impervious surfaces which
covers the structure as well as driveways, sidewalks and decks.
If the applicant were to meet all setbacks for the lot, the area
which could be built on would cover an area of approximately
1 , 380 square feet. Then you would also need to add in, at a
minimum, a driveway to serve the structure, assuming a two car
garage, a 30 foot setback and a 16 foot wide drive, we would have
another 480 feet added onto that figure. That would bring the
total up to 1,860 square feet. This would comply with the maxi-
mum coverage requirement of the code.
Lot coverage for the proposed home based on the plan dated March
6, 1989, breaks out as follows.
Deck 330 sq. ft.
Driveway 320 sq. ft.
Sidewalk and front stoop 100 sq. ft.
Proposed Building Footprint 1,650 sq. ft.
(garage included)
Total 2, 400 sq. ft.
This total, 2 ,400 square feet, is approximately 525 square feet
larger than the maximum allowable lot coverage for this piece of
property. ,
1
I
Board of Adjustments
March 8, 1989
Page 3
' In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30 foot
front yard setback to allow for a 17 foot setback. They are
asking for a side yard setback of 5 feet on the west side from
the required 10 feet. They are requesting a variance to the 75
foot rear yard setback from the lake for a 10 foot encroachment
for a deck on the rear of the home. Lastly, they are requesting
a lot coverage variance of approximately 525 square feet over
iwhat is allowed.
The second item requested by the Board of Adjustment was a sum-
' mary of other variances that have been granted along Lake Riley
Boulevard. These are summarized below, however, staff would
advise the Board of Adjustment that each application is to be
considered on its own merits and the unique characteristics that
' may apply to a particular lot or circumstance.
Case
' 82-9 Variance 9239 Lake Riley Boulevard
In this particular case, the applicant was granted a 5 foot side
' yard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance.
86-1 Variance 9235 Lake Riley Boulevard
In this case, the variance approved for the property was to allow
a single family residence to be 50 feet from the southerly ordi-
nary high water mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinance high
water mark.
These are the two variances that staff has identified on Lake
' Riley Boulevard in this particular neighborhood. Also, there was
another area that people have mentioned, which was a reconstruc-
tion on an existing foundation footprint. This particular pro-
' perty does not meet setback requirements but plans were approved
under a section of the code which allows for the improvement of
an existing structure as long as that footprint is not extended
beyond what was there previously. This does not require the
owner to come before the Board of Adjustments for a variance to
improve that existing structure.
' In order for the Board of Adjustments to grant the variances as
requested by the applicant, the Board still needs to make
findings that the application satisfies the five criteria. While
' the applicant' s revised plans are an improvement over what they
had requested previously, the issue remains, is there a hardship
that is not self-imposed, are the variances necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of property rights on this parcel, and
third, are the circumstances self-imposed or a result of a unique
situation?
f
(--
Board of Adjustments
March 8 , 1989
Page 4
This is the determination that the Board of Adjustment needs to
make in reviewing this particular request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report for BOA Hearing on February 27, 1989. ,
2. Revised plot plan dated March 6, 1989, showing setbacks as
proposed.
3 . Revised plot plan showing the proposed structure overlayed on
existing improvements on property.
4 . Letter from applicant dated February 28, 1989.
5 . Letter from adjacent property owner dated February 2, 1989.
1
i
1
1
I
I
I
3
c, ITY OF cOA DATE: Feb. 27, 1989
CUAUAESS
i \ C.C. DATE:
,,,,,. -
CASE NO: 89-1 Variance
Prepared by: Hanson/v#
il STAFF REPORT
1 -
1 PROPOSAL: • Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence
Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side
F - Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage
Ili
1 V LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley
Boulevard
9-1. APPLICANT: James & Mary Ellen Jessup ?:-
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard F. �_
IChanhassen, MN 55317 D-'._y.� _a3 1:9
I _
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
IACREAGE: .17 acres (7,500 + s. f. )
DENSITY:
I
ADJACENT ZONING
-AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; residential single family
1 S- RD; Lake Riley
E- RSF; residential single family
y
(, W- RSF; residential single family
ILLIL. WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available
i(7
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site slopes to lake
1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential
1
i .�.: _ _. 7 "d ,:m14., -
1 86 TH S.
P �C a- r 8600
•
>
illi
J
fY1
8700
cc) RSF. . I
' R 1 2 8800
•
OPOAT
wr4 _o
8900
rc
FARO R. I8 „1/1 / I vit ,,_ ---\\,,�
Co Ar ri ' 9000 I
C _ .� R
as 1
A2
= � 9100
PUDJ.,.._ "°
vain
:- It • � - 9200
,virro4 oliv., ka\ /
!sal,, `
:Iv 4
,r- \��, 9300
. ' /9SF RILEY
I
-. �_�_ -� - 9400 •
ll
i
9500
1j', 7p ERIEJ
,
ir
-9600
I
11 IP
9700
I
POND
, 4 Il
0 --) /kAIL (;..R.14 � j /
0
Fix*
v
goo
i)
e // 200
• I
I 1 1 r W Q...,' 300
'
II
Jessup Variance
February 27, 1989
II Page 2
IISUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES
II RSF Existing Existing Proposed Proposed
Description Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance
Front Setback 30 ' 20 ' -10 ' 20 ' -10 '
ISide (east) 10 ' 6. 8 ' - 3.2 ' 5 ' - 5 '
' Side (west) 10' -2. 5' -12.5' 1' - 9 '
Rear 75 ' 78 ' + 3 ' 61' -14 '
I Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9%
Coverage
IThe applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements
of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the
II property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set-
back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of
Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864.5. The survey of the
property does not include the elevation so the exact location of -
I the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears
to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to
encroach into the setback 14 feet.
1 --The side setback (west) is requested to be 1 foot. The existing
garage on the property is located 2.- feet off the property. The
I other side setback (east) is presently 6.8 feet and the proposal
is for this to be 5 feet at the garage and 10 feet along the
side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the
garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also,
II the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would
help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed
and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor-
Iners of the house would be out of the setback.
The front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and this is con-
sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard and this
,
neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car to park in
the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck
and porch would bring this into compliance with code require-
' ments.
The lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant
increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the
deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conformance with
this requirement.
I
-essup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 3
The zoning code provides five findings that the Board of '
Adjustments and Appeals must make in order to grant the variance
request. These criteria and staff analysis are as follows :
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
* The literal enforcement of this chapter would not preclude '
use of the property, however, enforcement of the front set-
back would require a setback which is not characteristic of
the homes east of this lot on the lake side of Lake Riley
Boulevard.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances 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. _ .
* S'pecial conditions are that this lot is narrower and
smaller than would be required under the present codes if
it were to be created now. The question is can the lot be
developed and comply with code requirements, and the answer
is yes, the lot could be developed but not with a home of
the size that is proposed. I
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
* The property could be developed without the variances
although the house would have to have a smaller foot print.
'rhe granting of the front yard variance allows some flexi-
bility
and is in keeping with the lots to the east.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence
of a self-created hardship.
* The home to be built is a new home and it is difficult to
say that non-compliance with the setbacks is not self- '
imposed. The present zoning was in effect when—the owners
purchased the property and there has been no change in
requirements. I
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.
* The front setback is in character. Some side yard setbacks
may be appropriate but a 90% reduction on the side and 50%
on the other indicates the structure is simply to large for
the site. This is further noted by the proposed lot ,
-essup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 4
' coverage of 34% versus the code requirement of 25%. The
encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not
something the city has allowed except in unique areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals not approve
' the variances as proposed based on findings that the request does
not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff
recommends the Board adopt the following motion:
•
' "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed
variances for Variance Request #89-1, James Jessup, 9247 Lake
Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side
yard setbacks, rear yard setback and maximum lot cover of the
^ity Code based on the following findings:
1 . Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac-
tical difficulty.
2 . The variances are not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights.
1 . The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size
and design of the propbsed structures.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Letter from applicant dated February 20, 1989.
2 . Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989
' . Application.
3 . Existing plot plan.
4 . Proposed plot plan.
t c I
•
February 20, 1989 11
Board of Adjustment
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 5531
RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 1
Dear Board:
I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear Lake
'
and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto
Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the
lake. It was platted decades ago therefore is not upto current '
standards of lot size.
The current situation is that a one story structure exists there I
now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the I
seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car
garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from
HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
remodel and add stories to obtain adequate spacce. -
I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is ,
to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use.
Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This
alternative would require building a structure three stories tall
and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the
setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building '
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing
conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
tradeoff for heighth versus width is perferable.
CITY OF CHANHA,,.,2N ,
R ELI
FEB 2t1989
CHANHASSEN P!P!N!NC` DEPT. I
, ( . C
II
The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build
Il structure that would be three stories tall and main floor
omprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The
neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual
'mpact of a tall structure. I find the idea not appealing also.
e situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted many decades
o. The lot is pie-shaped and not to current standards. The
setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These
nditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow
enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
mes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is
totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The
r me on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year.
e planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The
ariances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health,
safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of
Ire current structure and like the idea of a new structure.
I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and
1ok forward to starting construction this Spring.
Sincerely,
limes F. Jessup
property owner of
1f4'7 Lake Riley Blvd.
II
11
1
I
11
II
II
II
II
II
f
CITY OF CHANHOSSEN
February 21, 1989 M M II
Board of Adjustment FEB 1989
City of Chanhassen
II
Chanhassen, MN 5531 ENGINEERl DEPT
RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. I
Dear Board:
The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake . 1
residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide
me long term residence.
I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, I
and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake
Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the
lake.
II
The current situation is that a one story structure exists there
now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property
II
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the
seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets II
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car
garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from
HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
II
remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too
small and narrow by current standards.
I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is II to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use.
Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This
alternative would require building a structure three stories tall II and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the
setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building
II
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
II
structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing
I
conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
tradeoff for height versus width is preferable.
The request for variances is consistent with other lake
II
properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine
have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property
line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore
II
Acres, was recently granted twenty-five and forty feet variances
for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is
being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the
II
11
•
lake or side yard.
The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build
a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor
comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The
neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual
impact of a tall structure. The situation is peculiar to my lot as
it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie-shaped. It is too
narrow and too small in square footage by current standards. The
setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These
conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow
' me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is
totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The
11 home on the west side was recently remodeled and enlarged. The
planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances
will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current
structure and like the idea of a new structure.
I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and
look forward to starting construction this Spring.
Sincerely,
James dr. Jessup _
resident/property owner of
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
I
I
I
I
• q -t,i Ul T I I I i+U I C' —
1
w {
I +r .
,J /
RAILROAD TIE ' �' / .N vs.
�/`
RETAINING WALL :;g0,00. 1-
// 4. •`10 i►
b /'
.F y,
O
`�.
/ E!1 \
Enos / 141 %'s.b
N
4 ff,
/
I
I .
. I
� r �
e.•. 1
I
I
■
I-- I
X •- CHAIN LINK
3
•r t FENCE
C L.N. �/r�tll
n N
O =
kf: EXISTING I
1
CHAIN LINK.-
I FENCE
WEST LINE OF THE S.E.11,4
.,{" OF SECTION 24, T.116 N.,R.23 W,
t4 ti y..5--
r 5 ACCORCMNG TO THE, RECORD PLAT
",. OF SHORE ACRES
1. l b0
91 4°... a.
IA
��15'�' oc:•
1
co5`0( 2/201 y
s 6,.3J o0
Y E `1 I
1
•
I •
N
• .XI \
`` e
--4..
I
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: 2.i'Yie As O u1J 2 OWNER: _La ni€5 F. MA f SSt
ADDRESS ADDRESS g747 L4-V-E L/ 13•c&. p.
61-1-pa iv /-1,454e-Ni 55
Zip Code Zip Code
' TELEPHONE (Daytime) 34/ • to U 28 TELEPHONE 4qL a 3 58
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Il Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
' Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
' PRESENT ZONING
' REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY / *V/ F7; X 30 Fr' x / 6a c. X 7 7 /9r
LOCATION Q.247 44-e-5 5 RnLEt,/ A4i✓ WAssFnl..
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Nf4c/ lila17 6 ETNST7' 1 0_77;IA/
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LOT 42 QF SffO1& 4-e_L&Z
l
1
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
IIThis application must be completed in full and be
clearly typewritten, or
y printed and must be accompanied by all information and_
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions.
filing this application, Planner
you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application.
II
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereb I
lfles
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances . i
Signed By,.. % , ' d2 - Date . 1 2 / VA II
p licant 1
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
II
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
II
Signed By • e Date ,I Z 1f,,
ner j q
' ,
Date Application Received 09 •oZ 4, i
Application Fee Paid $7540 6 75.00
City Receipt No. A b20-_t9
I
3 Wino,
proica" truritoto hAll
This Application will be considered by the
Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
II
meeting.
1
r
fill1111111•111="1 11....00100•• irmulliiii-i
. .
•
. . —
, .
1 ,..-
_,
4:), (
_ ..
•
Is••• s/
.1/ ••#■-"(
I ,
RAiLROAD TIE
RETAINING wALL
/ ‘
0 4
4.•
I
•••.Y•
q0,00. Rke.t,
,
.. . 1
.„,
I : 1..s,
At. ^.
, '
1
t
7 1
I" ....
1 ..7.■ I ,
1 .
t
/ I I "............
......... iv
i O C:‘
f
/
I ::;
• ------._..
/
..,
I
t
r-
vm
. :I
../
... ._. oz.,
i•.-.:
/ .
• i
1 EXISTING a
• ft EXISTING
6
GARAGE IV
Al
12.4
I 4.
.r
I HOUSE
..
.._
7.
Sit,
4-fr.- .
.. .,,
1 ..•
. i.: ,... • i e 43ExiSTING
e. CHAW LINK
ENCE
t .... • 28.r
/
_
I
lit
O• —
O -.................
41•
'I' t..... —.,...
......_ .
,..,:
...
CO
. .
EXISTING *lc
•
CHAIN LINK 1•0.,1,1 /
Iv:
FENCE
_ ...
WEST LINE OF THE S.r.I/4
I 4.:
I_
N.,--
tz---
i OF SECTION 24, T.NS N. R.23
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT
OF SHORE ACRES
••4E4'7,•.' ..
Ft' ,.......
t-
I :
/::::
0-
I _
Ce e I-
I A
•
..•I S: 33 0
so., -..41.19',.0 .
2 y• q•
C•ye. E
...1
• I tii....ii.,T 1 1-114
*W , 4;t,r0flt,P--/-7
,
-.1
a i•
I
I a)
N
".'"s■.s...........s.....
s...........,........,...........
it 41 /
II ....7.:.:•••,....,......
4 4
---,.............„;
kk- --....z............ ,
I f?i, „ , --,
-c v.- --------- /
• . , I
I• '` '- •
IJ O
w y . I
Z Ra1LROAO TIE / OF . " 89• ./4 F
RETAINING WALL . '?SOOO`
w
'J
si-
x - / d1 5, /
40* 14
/ i .
/ . I
/ ./
r^`1 /S'ITT
I0I 10.b I
•
1 r ivery,
4t
...*.....7 L - 0
F
I
/ .
w
.�;. 00 f^
•7/L?/ EXISTING
•' s.` CENd LINK AY
a -. . �O s b �ENCf•
•
t° 0 ( r
•141- .
EXISTING I
FENCE
F"- W ,!
4'
-,-.:
4 ••
/ . ,
II
CS
•
�4. 'f
I
J u�yE�: ? .F ...i•
1
a O i
N
,., a '...' / ......■........................
I
4qk� ��`
•
i
February 28, 1989
Mr. Steve Hanson
Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
RE: Variance Request #89-1
' Dear Steve:
I ask you to place my request first on the agenda for the
1 Board of Adjustment meeting. I would like to have adequate time to
present uninterrupted rather than being forced to present as people
come strolling in at 7:30 p.m. to attend the City Council meeting.
If I can be of assistance to you in writing a staff report
recommending the proposed site plan dated February 22, 1989 I would
' appreciate the opportunity.
The issue is not the size of the proposed structure as we both
recognize the grandfather clause. The issue is do I build two or
three stories plus basement to obtain the same living space that
I have proposed. The perpetuation of the existing single car garage
location is not what I prefer but provides the only garage under
' a grandfather clause.
I think the elimination of the encroachment and improving side
setbacks to a minimum of five feet is in the best interest of the
neighborhood.
If you wish to walk over the property please call a day in
advance to set the time. I work during the day and will need to
make special arrangements to be there.
Thanks for your time and patience on this matter.
Sincerely,
I a
James F. Jessup
resident/owner
I
MAR 11989
,u1 of CHANHASSEN
I
=:ebrua r . .', 1989 ,
Nh . Ste,e Hanson
Ci tv Planner , City of Chanhassen
Re: The proposed improvements to the property at 9247 Lake
Riley Blvd.
Dear Mr. Hanson:
I would like to tha►il: you and the City Engineer for taking 11
your time to speak with me last Wednesday regarding my next
door neighbor 's intentions to remodel his home. As I
explained to you in our meeting, we are very much in favor of
seeing the property next to ours improved. However , we want
to be clear on. the City s planning process and regulations,
and to know our property rights.
From our discussion , I understand the following points to be
how the City of Chanhassen views the situation: '
1 . The City of Chanhassen will allow Mr. Jessup to
rebuild on the existing foundation without any
special permits as long as it does not further
impose on any of the setback requirements. The City
is aware that the existing structures do not comply
with the current building code.
2. The maximum building height is 3 stories.
k maximum 40 feet overall )
3. If Mr. Jessup chooses to build on the existing
foundation, he might be allowed to attach the house
to the garage, but he could not add any living space
over the garage.
4. There is a question as to if he could rebuild ,
anything on the existing garage foundation because
it already lies on my property.
5. If he does decide to completely destroy the existing 11
structures and rebuild, the City would allow a
variance to the 30 foot required setback from the
road, to approximately 20 feet. ( This would line
up with the two homes to the East of the property )
o. The City will not allow any variances to the 75 foot
setback from the lake. This includes decks, 3 season
porches, and patios in front of a walk out basement.
7. For variances to the 10 foot side setbacks to be
allowed , a hardship ( non self-created as per
section 0--58 #4. ) would have to be established. It - - -
was your opinion that you knew of no such hardship
FHBQ71
.. ............�
because Mr. Jessup was well aware of the size of the
lot and the pertinent city codes when he purchased
the property last year .
~~
B. 'The City 's opinion is that I would have easement '
rights across the northwest corner of his lot for
N� access to my two driveways. This is because I have
N� owned my property for over eight years and I have
used and maintained the corner of his property for
access to my property. Also, this condition has
existed in this form since the home and garage were
built in the early 60 's.
N� 9. The City cannot provide jurisdiction as to how he
reroutes the rain water runoff , even if he redirects
it onto my property, because this is an individual
legal question for a judge to decide.
lo. The City will inform us in writing when the actual
applications and plans have been submitted and when
N� the Board of Adjustments and Appeals will meet to
discuss the variances. I understand that the
earliest date of this meeting would be February
N� 27th.
If I have misunderstood any of the above points, I would
appreciate if you would let me know as soon as possible. If
I do not hear from you by February 15th , I will assume the
above points to be correct.
m�
Again , I would like to thank you for your time and
information.
Sir 'el y,
�0f
Donald Sitter
9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
N�
Chanhassen , Mn. 55317
445-5/28
0� cc Mr. Don Ashworth , City Manager
—;;;;ww.•$,.......t.imikoirtvwvorwolowoMm10.0wfwwwwww0ortpsows11084W1WWIrif8111100101114.48‘8101111018111110180100419108.8m1110•401100414Rfoomomot4.-e.4.0
•
, : !
,p
...„
. 1.-..
•
z 0
,
we,m a°
A -4
r-- , \ ,-
t e •
21 i
r n \ ) ..•••••,,
r1"? / 0
1.4
k , / . .—.....--...-, 1
/ a. ....__________. \ A.
es \
—_._.______., \ -44-
$ow'05 10"W •
16.4 - ..- 93 ..
28.: 122 87
1 :-
4
1 I
IL"-
k'l
• ...—...............—......—......---\
, \
,.., • _.
e•4.■
r r.05,,, -4
r\•
• il . C.^ i
4, t,•
4 a,/ :::: ilvit ..„
--z-
,z) - ,
.
4-
,...°4 gilv .4 ;•. , 0
1 Ai' -. 7 .
\
4- t e ---------_:::::_:Is'4.6 ,,,,,_,z
-rn /,/' 4
/ ,,,' —______. =a-,
T.,. ,
L..... .:::: .
34 ali. all 0 .
.:::
11110144
N
Z3....,
/
"' Ca
•
/ g
Ir IS
--.,
--,.........
• r...- -
_ • _
.._.......,,_...............,
; ...._
,.t•..-...-
-----,....
,....._._
.
, .i.- --ir_______ ..., ,•t0,
, 7 -4 •
----...................„...........
-, 0 Ki.,
c
/ 06
-6, r o
0
Cb
r
/ ---..,.......
1 .....3
---,....... A,
'<:".04.o........L.......................5. . 00.4..
N ............. 40
' / .....4
r, t" . -.....,...
.....z- iN
, tO's C3 ; ■
. . /S' /74
C)
0
ill
MX*
0 Zb- 0004
ji,
'14..''''''-''''''•...... So/ .
2
CD
5.
A
-4)
.....
-,-:„ r■ _
T
h7
iiii iii MN IIIII all 1110111 I= • MI IIIII IIIM MN NIII MI IN 11111V- MI MIS
!..
• L q tact I I I I .v t c
I . k
(.,.
. I 4J.. '
,3.0
I a a
I 4'
� I
RAILROAD TIE / , O!\ ( N Gg r
RETAINING WALI_r> 1 4pr�ON 1'f• Y
i - I 'Jo
/ °:44//,'.. "../.I - i .
�: o� / ' .I PJ.. t.�
I ,t `' / I 46 03.
r / ILa 0
I
f.
WI
E X 1 5 T ►• VI^` CA
S T I N G e I WM
I
I E O
G A R
Al
^ O
d
s /2 Y •
f+L1Ai'rl►!4 H1tHt�to �I S{OM4fi 11/ih/ILTE. '�tr f
H O U S E
I _ _ _
it II
C VAIN j
NGIN L11•R
"T66 (FENCE
O
I n
2 0 N 28.7
N og
.
1 eviirmor
EaiST/NG
/ .
+' CHAIN LINK--7
I .
} FENCE t
WEST INE OF THE S 11A
OF SE. 2a, T116N ,nR 23W,
ACCOR'NO TO THE RE•ONO PLAT
OF S RE ACRES
C2 p
I t�
/11 n7n0/
0
56 a7 3/G.8 f
I
I '
6.e +
F
I I S 600 .
Sy9YEr 3y o F., 1
I `'AE�``\'- r
I
i OD
/1/
.......... .., /
�h j
/f'--A, r
IR,/ ��
M I
( 1
1
March 6, 1989
Donald W. Sitter
9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
Stephen R. Hanson
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen Mn. 55317
Dear Mr. Hanson:
This letter is intended to formalize our concerns with
regards to the request for variances on the Jessup property
at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
We do want to see the property improved, however we would
like to insure that the house plans are consistent with the
rest of the homes in the neighborhood and that the plans make
sense for the lot it will be on.
As for the hardship, I do not see that the Jessups have
established any hardships that are not self-created. They
knew the size of the lot, the city's setback ordinances and
the condition of the home before they purchased the property.
Also, there is plenty of room to build a fine home within the
setback requirements (approx. 1470 sq. ft. on one level) .
Specifically, we are concerned with the following points:
1. The proposed overall size of the house is too big for the
lot. The preliminary plans show a 3000 square foot home
with a potential 6 bedrooms placed on a lot having just
over 7000 square feet and only 25 feet of shoreline.
Because we have still not seen full plans or elevations,
if these variances are granted, the actual total square
feet could expand even more. I feel the city should
demand full plans and elevations be submitted before they
consider ruling on any of these variance requests.
2. We feel very strongly that the house should not be built
any closer to the lake than the 75 foot setback
requirement. This is mainly for environmental concerns.
This should definitely include not only 3 season porches,
but also decks and patios which could easily be enclosed
in the future, thereby obstructing neighbor's views of
the lake.
3. We still feel the plans show the house being too close to
our property line. It is true that his garage now lies
I
slightly on our property and it would appear to be an
' improvement to move it over 6 feet. But as it is now,
all their traffic and activities go between their garage
and house with the garage acting as a buffer for us. If
they incorporate the garage in the house as the plans
' show, all their traffic would go around the house on our
side. Therefore we would want the full 10 foot setback
requirement enforced to prevent their activities from
spilling over onto our property.
4. The overall height that we saw on a preliminary drawing
showed it to be 3 stories high and to be approximately 35
feet over the road. I realize this is within the 40 foot
requirement, but it does not fit with the neighborhood
when the 2 homes to the east are only one story high.
5. We are very concerned with the drainage problems that
will be caused by the size and placement of the planned
' structure. Originally all the rain water flowed through
the Jessup property. The Jessups have already piled
gravel on the back of their lot enough to re-route the
water onto our property. Now if they build this house as
planned and totally change the grade thereby blocking the
natural water path, all the water must go somewhere else.
I believe the city should demand the Jessups submit
' drainage plans to show how they will handle the water
drainage problem.
_ 6 . We also think the activities associated with a house of
this size do not fit on such a small lot. We are
concerned that eventually their activities will end up
spilling over on the adjacent properties.
Finally, in response to the comments Mr. Jessup stated in the
meeting on Feb. 27th, we feel he was greatly exaggerating
some of the points. As for what exists now on the property,
he was claiming that the shed attached to the garage, the
pumphouse, and the deck are now existing permanent
structures that were not shown on his plans. The reason
these were not shown is because they are not permanent
structures. The facts are that the "shed" is a "basket-weave"
fence with a few pieces of plastic for a roof, the "deck" is
' a large step out the front of the house without railings and
is simply sitting on a few concrete blocks, and the "pump
house" is a "structure" only about three feet square and only
' one foot above the ground level. He also claimed the
driveway to be permanent asphalt when in fact it is only
loose gravel, and I am not sure the garage itself would even
qualify as a permanent structure. I hope you have time
before the next meeting to come out and view the property
yourself- to verify these facts.
As for a precedence being set by other homes in the
neighborhood, I don't believe any exist. The new home under
I
.
1
construction on the point ( I believe Lot #35 ) had many
extenuating circumstances because within the setbacks, there
was little or no room left to. build. I know this plan was
reviewed very closely by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
prior to granting any variances. The small blue house Mr.
Jessup mentioned that is currently being remodeled on 9221
Lake Riley Blvd. , is also a different story. This was
supposedly built on the existing foundation and was not
brought up to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for
review. There were no variances needed for what they wanted
to do. Because I believe they built beyond the extents of
the original foundation and I believe this is unfortunate,
this should be handled as a separate issue and should no way
be viewed as setting a precedence for the Jessup situation.
In conclusion, We would like very much to work with the
Jessups to achieve a plan that will be acceptable to all.
But as for the requested variances, we feel the only one that
would be acceptable is to allow them to go within 20 -feet of
the road which is similar to the adjacent houses to the east.
All the other requested variances, we feel very strongly
should not be granted.
Thank you very much to your attention to this matter.
•
Sincerely,
c
�v
Donald W. Sitter 1
1
I
I
I
I
1
City Council Members
City of Chanhassen
February 27, 1989
1
Dear Council Members:
Due to other committments I am not able to attend tonight's
meeting. I would, however, like to comment on the proposed
building of a home on the lot located at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
My concern is the overbuilding of this lot. It is my
understanding that the proposed structure would be over 3300
square feet in total area with a 2 car garage and a large amount
of deck in addition to that. I like large homes as much as anyone
but the size of this home on the lot that they have proposed it for
' is unreasonable. I am speaking on this subject with many
interests: 1) I am a resident in the neighborhood in question and
feel overbuilding of any lot would be a detriment to it; and 2) I
own 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. which is also a buildable lot in the
neighborhood and located on Lake Riley. While I am all for nice
homes coming into the neighborhood, I believe that there should be
guidelines established by the city to control the size of building on
any given lot. It is indeed unfortunate that the situation should
get to the point where neighbors or potential neighbors have to pit
themselves against each other to achieve a solution. True, there is
a procedure for granting variances and that is needed. However,
there should be a ratio of building size to lot size so that there is
' some firm guidance as to what can be expected by both parties. If
there is a guideline as such on the books, then I believe it should be
enforced by the city so the neighbors wouldn't have to.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely, 7
Alan H. Dirks
I
I
I
11
r
March 6, 1989
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
To: Board of Adjustments and Appeals '
This Letter serves to voice our feelings of opposition to
granting variances for front, side, rear setbacks and
maximum lot coverages at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is
our understanding that the applicants wish to construct a 3
story, 3000-3600 square foot house on this very small
lakeshore lot. -
To' grant the variances for this lot will set a precedence
for the remaining small lots around the area. What will
happen is that the other owners may elect to do the same,
thus creating a very close complex of oversized houses that
would not be very appealing. This we feel will detract and
degrade from the esthetic appearance of the neighborhood as
well as the country openness this area has grown to enjoy.
These are reasons we chose to move to where we are.
We recommend denial of these variances and will appreciate
our concerns being given the fair attention deserved. Please
visit the site, observe the neighborhood, and recognize the
impact to the neighborhood if the variances are approved.
Thank You in advance for your consideration in this matter. '
Respectfully,
tart 4.4.. t U3 x(
1
Kenneth and Katherine Wolter
341 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
(612)-496-1337
I
1
I
City" Cou�,nci.l Meeting - Fel,Luary 27, 1989
C.
I
II subdivision plat, the actual survey showing that lot split of the lot and it
also includes an outlot. That's been reviewed by the staff and it does conform
[-
with the zoning requirements so staff is recommending the Council approve the
final plat of Eight Acre Woods Second Addition.
•
II Grant Johnson: My name is Grant Johnson, 6270 Murray Hill Road. I believe the
packet that you've got is relatively self explanatory. For those of you who
I were on the Council a year or so ago when the Murray Hill Addition was approved,
it was somewhat obvious at the time or we had kind of implied that this was our
intent eventually and the time has just come now that we can put this together
ISO I'm just willing to answer any questions that anyone may have.
Mayor Chmi.el: I guess I myself don't have any questions on this. To me it
looks like it's self explanatory. I don't know if anyone else on the Council
II has any questions.
Councilman Workman: Steve, can you explain to me meets and bounds?
IISteve Hanson: It's a legal description. In other words, it's described as far
as the bearings and distances rather than being an actual plat where you refer
II to it as Lot 1, Block 1. So it's surveyed in as opposed to the normal formal
plat that you would see.
Councilman Workman: Why wouldn't this need a formal plat?
IISteve Hanson: There's a provision in the Statute as well as in the City Code
that allows you to do it this way for a simple subdivision rather than going
II through the expense of doing a full detailed plat. It's really cost savings for
them.
Councilman Workman: I guess then give me one reason why they have to have a
IIplat versus meets and bounds. What makes the difference?
Steve Hanson: This is basically a lot under special circumstances when you're
I splitting just one lot into two. If you're making it more than that, you'd go
through the full blown subdivision process.
II Councilman Workman: So basically you're saying if one line is involved to split
it, then you can do it this way? Okay.
II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat
for Eight Acre Woods Second Addition (#89-1 Subdivision) as shown on the plat
stamped "Received February 6, 1989". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
/t VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
L.-7
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
ISteve Hanson: This item was presented to the Board of Adjustments earlier
tonight and the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment to allow additional
II
4
II
City Council Meeting ( oruary 27, 1989
II
input so I would suggest that you just continue this item and that you need to
take no action.
II
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE
A' : FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART
' ,IJ CONVENIENCE STORE, G.P. BAJR INC. . II
Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This item was also up before the
Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the
II
Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it
not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether .
they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make II that decision.
SET 1989/90 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES. I
Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of
approximately 5%. Each of the license holders were given notice of this
II
meeting. Some of the licenses are established under State Statutue and I have
asterisked those that are again set by the State. Staff is recommending that _
the license fees be increased generally by 5%. We rounded in some cases as
shown in your report dated February 8th.
II
Mayor Chmi.el: Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the
audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that
II
{ we're adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non-intoxicating
license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale
non-intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at II$2500.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the
requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion.
Don Ashworth: May I make one quick point? The motion also includes the I
intoxicating liquor schedule. The City's schedule there is based on both
restaurant and non-restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as
about 5% higher than in 1988. I
Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get those figures Don?
Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had asked for a 1
comparison of fees with some of our other communities. I was looking for that
information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available.
Resolution #89-29: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to '
approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
II
1
�A r , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD THAT WAS GRANTED ON
FEBRUARY 8, 1988 FOR ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH
II
' j ' 212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE.
Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existing conditional use permit. II The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements
5
II
II
L , _. ' City Council Meeting ( .rch 13, 1989 f
l
11
Resolution #89-34: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
II approve a resolution proclaiming the week of March 12-18, 1989 as Girl Scout
Week in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations.
I (;f - ` VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEN
U „�9INGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
I `lf ,:x Mayor Chmei.1: We have moved up item number 7 which we held at the Board of
V� Appeals and Adjustments just J j prior to the Council meeting. The Board of Appeals
and Adjustments had reviewed the proposal and because of the many conditions and
11 many things that have happened within the area of the setback requirements that
were done previously for other homes, had approved this particular item. Now of
course it canes to Council for discussion. I'm not sure whether Mr. Jessup
II would like to make a presentation. If so, please proceed.
Councilman Johnson: Was this passed unanimously?
IICouncilman Boyt: It was.
Councilman Johnson: Does any member of the Council have a problem with it?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
James Jessup: I am James Jessup. My wife, Mary Ellen is here with me this -
' evening. The two kids are at home and the goal of our request is to establish a
long term residence with the proposed property changes... The action that we're
requesting is for you to approve Site Plan dated 3-6-89. I apologize if you
II - looked at the staff report at the number of site plans that have been modified
- and changed along the way. The fact is we tried to accommodate input from
neighbors and staff and do other things to the project. What I've got is an
I existing structure and this is covered in your handout on page 4. This same
drawi.ng... The orange highlighting shows portions of the existing structure or
outside of the project. The proposed structure sets inside the existing
structure on 3 of the 4 sides. On the east side of the property the existing
II setback is 4 1/2 feet. I'm proposing a 10 foot setback. On the street side of
the property or the front, there's an existing 16 foot setback. I'm proposing
17. On the west side of the property, the garage actually encroaches onto the
I neighbor's property which is not a good situation .but I'd like to change that.
I would propose a 5 foot setback on that side of the property, the west side.
So it's...8 1/2 feet. On the back of the property, I propose a 10 foot setback
that would have a whole new deck in that setback. Behind that sketch is a rough
I house plan that I put together that shows the main level of this 2 story home
with 3 bedrooms. We have a 2 car garage, kitchen, dining room area and den are
all.. .pretty standard home. ...3 bedroom home, 2 bathroom. Similar to what you
probably. We're trying to build a home here that's similar to what's already
existing.. . I think the colored pictures there that you've got, the front page
has that red home there, that's the existing structure and garage. It's not the
greatest. That's what's existing there today. If this is approved, that would
be gone. *It's a tough site and the reason for the setback requirements are the
fact that the lot... The minimum frontage across the street side is less than
19
II
City Council Meeting - M,., _,, 13, 1989
minimal standards. It's a tough situation. It's an existing situation that I'd
like to improve. I'd like to get rid...I'd like to improve the setback...and
(1!
the Board of Adjustments agrees. As an alternate, not as an alternate but to
further talk about the hardship... That's the setback as proposed by the '
guidelines. Within that area you can see that there's very little space on a
main floor to build, after you include your 2 car garage, a stairway to get to
the upper level, a deck and a small room for... ,
Councilman Johnson: You're putting a bigger deck on that example than on the
house you're planning. ,
James Jessup: I think they're the same size. What I've got here is a situation
that's difficult by design of the lot. It was a pre-existing condition. The
previous owner experienced similar frustrations in that property is too close to
the street and too close to the east side. The garage encroaches on the west
side and the deck sits in the lake area. The situation is, I appreciate your
consideration. The precedent for this situation as the staff has reported in
the report to you, variance 89-2, a home 250 feet down Lake Riley Blvd.. Here
are some pictures on 13, page 13 of your handout, excuse me the fourth page.
The bottom home. The home that's tall. That home was granted a_5 foot variance
from the property line. It was granted a 33 foot variance on the lake side and
the front yard setback also so there's precedence very close by... Just in
summary, I'd just like to restress the hardship criterias. I think this meets
pretty well and this plan shows what's there, what's proposed. There's just not
roam to... I think I've got a pretty reasonable strcuture that's 2,000 square
feet on two levels...so I would ask for your approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I know we have a neighbor here who would also like to address
this.
Don Sitter: First of all we would definitely like to see this property improve.
The house next to us right now is an eyesore. I have no concerns about that at
all. We want to make sure that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood
and fit on the lot that it's being put on. The City ordinances call for an
establishment of a hardship of some sort. I don't believe any hardship has been
established. If you look at the site plan, they have approximately 1,470 square
feet within setbacks which they can build this plan. I think that's plenty of
room to build a fine home. If they want to go two levels, they've got nearly
the 3,000 square foot. Specifically we're concerned about a few things. One is
the overall size of the house. What Jim calls a 2 story house, I call a 3 story
house. His plans show for a full basement which is .a walkout basement and being '
on the lake, that's nearly road level or whatever so it is literally a very
large home. The 3 bedrooms upstairs, if you include the den and playroom and a
piece of the rec room that could be finished off, we could be looking at a 6
bedroom home on a lot of 7,000 square feet and lakeshore of 25 feet. I think
the Jessup's are fine people. What if they sell to a family of 6 teenage kids?
Where's all that activity going to fit on a lot of that size? As for- the
precedence being set, the house down the road I think was 40 feet back from the
lake which is a 35 foot variance or whatever. The house is approximately 30
feet deep. That means the back of their house is 75 feet from the lake and
they're already too close to the road. They literally had no room to build on
their lot. As far as the 50 foot wide lot...so as far as the side setbacks, I
think there's a considerable difference in that condition and in this condition.
We also have a concern with the drainage on the property. Right now you can see I
20
City Council Meeting t u.rch 13, 1989
11
their existing garage, the existing home, all the water runs out.. . It was
brought up at the Board of Adjustment meeting before us that some of the water
is coming from our house, running down the driveway and through their property.
' That's a small problem. The big problem is the entire area north...and I think
you can ask them. I know of at least 3 or 4 times in the last few years that
they've ended up with 6 inches of water in their house and they had plenty of
water damage to show that. He had to do a lot of -repairs on his home to fix
that. That's no small problem and I see no drainage plans at all whatsoever for
this. We're also a little worried about the overall height. The two homes to
the east are single story homes. His is up close to 35 feet in the air. I'm
' not sure that really fits with the rest of the neighborhood. You might ask why
I'm opposed to this and it seems kind of strange. They're looking at building a
very, very nice home which would help improve our property values and I think -
that's a good point and like I said, we want to see it improved. We think it's
' too much improvement. We think the house is just too big for the lot. I'm also
very concerned about the encroachment on the lakeside. Because there has been
no hardship established here and you're allowing them a 10 foot variance there,
I you're basically saying the City Ordinance is not good at 75 feet and you're
basically changing it to 65 feet. I'm not too sure that's what you really want
to do here. I guess if I saw same hardship or some reason why these variances
should be granted I'd say fine but I think they can do very well within the
setbacks and I'm pretty sure we're maybe establishing precedence on this one.
Not a precedence on the ones that were done down the road. I don't think they
apply to this case. I think it's different. Thank you for your time.
Councilman Boyt: I think that the important point here is that there are
criteria that are set up by the State to use when we're considering variances.
Variances are not meant to write ordinances. Variances are meant to handle
hardship situations that the ordinance could not be written to adjust to because
it was in fact a unique hardship. If we're unhappy with our ordinances, we
' should rewrite them but if we're going to give a variance, we really ought to
follow the guidelines the State has set down for us. Now we as a Council are
acting on this kind of variance for the first time. Previous Councils have
acted on it and they have made decisions. We might be able to make a pretty
' strong argument that that does not bind us to making similar variances but once
we make it, we've then created a precedence for this particular body and anyone
who wants to come in and say I want to extend my house within 65 feet of the
' lake and we say to that person you do not have a hardship, they can say to us,
and neither did this situation. So I think from that standpoint, Mr. Jessup's
presentation is a good one. He makes a lot of very good points. The one about
the existing footprint of the hone I think is an excellent point and Should
allow us to make some reasonable adjustments. So I can understand the need to
allow some variances but I think we have to be very careful that we don't allow
any that haven't already been approved for this particular location. I would
' prefer to see us have a building, house, that does not come closer than the 68
feet the current residence comes. I think anytime we can improve and as
Mr. Jessup's second plan, his modifications from 2 weeks ago is certainly an
improvement over the first plan and in some regards we might be able to make an
argument that it's an improvement over the existing variances on the current
house. But where it's not an improvement I think that we can't afford to pass
that. Not when he can not show a hardship and he can't because he can develop
this property without variances so I think we should consider this very
carefully. This is not simply a matter of looking at this particular instance
but it's establishing our willingness to grant anyone the opportunity to build
21
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
within 65 feet of the lake. T
Mayor Chmiel: I guess there's been several thoughts on that portion. Steve, 1 '
will you read the specific conditions that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
have indicated?
Steve Hanson: Yes, the Board of Adjustments in their recommendation for
approval had...as follows. First .was that the drainage in the area be reviewed
by the City Engineer to come up with a viable means for handling that between
the neighbors specifically. The second condition was that the deck remain a
deck and no porch or any type of enclosure be allowed either up on that top
level or on the walkout level below. The third condition was that the plans for
the building be reviewed•by staff as part of the building permit process to
insure that what they're asking for in the building permit complies with what
the Board of Adjustment approves. Then the fourth condition was to specifically
make a plan that's contained in your packet and dated March 6th as the official
plan...Board of Adjustments specifying what those setbacks were. That was the
extent of the conditions placed on there.
Mayor Chmiel: As we looked further into this, and in a particular case on a '
variance that was granted previously just in an adjacent, in addition to the one
that Mr. Jessup has indicated, in this particular case the applicant was granted
a 5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance as
well. That was at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.. At 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. there was
also a single family residence be 50 feet from the southerly ordinary high water
mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinary high water mark. Unfortunately, as
[1!
I see it, there has been an awful lot of variances within that specific
area granted on all those homes. True it was granted by the previous Council. I
don't think in my good conscience and probably from the...aspect, can we deny
those variances with all the other variances that have already been granted.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond to that particular part of it.
What you were granting a variance can not be limited to one lake in town. When ,
you grant this variance, you in effect grant a variance for anybody that can
come in and make the argument that they have a similar situation and you have
taken hardship out of our criteria. ,
Don Sitter: I'd also like to make a point on those two instances. Both of
those lots were reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and they
determined that they were literally unbuildable if there weren't variances II
granted because they had no room left to build. So if that's the same
conditions that this is, I don't see that as being a precedence for this issue.
I think that they were considered very carefully and if you don't allow some
variances in those, you were deeming that property unbuildable and therefore
taking away the value of the land altogether and I think that's totally
different and I don't picture this... 1
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to agree with Bill a little bit here. When you
look at a variance that was granted in 1982 which is a long time, 7 years ago,
and you look at another one is 1986 which was 2 Councils ago and the variances
that were granted with the last Council have had primarily totally unbuildable
lots. There was down on Lake Riley that I don't think is on this list that we
granted where I think he got down to several hundred square feet of buildable
property by the time all the variances. He was on a peninsula and the 75 feet
22 1
I
• City Council Meeting r_.rch 13, 1989 1
came in from 3 sides on the guy and it was an improvement. I do not think that
there is in any variance, every variance has to stand totally on it's own. I've
been staunch on variances for years, or for 2 years. That there has to be a
I hardship shown. I don't want to put, I agree with Bill, 68 feet was the
existing setback there. I would say if we can go to 68 feet there. I think
he's trying to put more house into here than there has to be. I think that it
can fit with the neighborhood. I'd like to know if he tried to get the
neighboring property where his fence is that appears to be his yard, whether he
tried to obtain that from his neighbor and whether his neighbor is willing to
negotiate some of that which would change that setback because there is no house
' right next door on the one side. I think the neighbor is actually here.
James Jessup: What was the question?
' Councilman Johnson: Have you negotiated for the purchase of part of your land
where his fence is on your land up to his existing fence so his fence that
designates his yard is actually your yard.
James Jessup: We talked about that. If you'll also notice from the plans, my
driveway cuts across the corner of his property so we were talking about
' swapping back and forth there or sane easements or whatever. But in the area
where the fence is, we're only talking about a foot or 2 on my property so it's
no. ..
Councilman Johnson: Well it does change the variance a little bit but I think
that needs to continue to be worked on. I'm against expanding a bad situation
and going any closer to a lake. While I don't buy the argument that if we do
this somebody else someplace else, each variance has to stand completely on it's
own. If we do this, tomorrow his next door neighbor could come in and ask the
same variance and we could turn it down. It'd be tough. It doesn's seem
reasonable that way but we would have to justify this variance and for sane
particular reason on this lot does he need that variance to put that deck on
there? In my opinion is no. There is no hardship. If you can justify in your
' mind that there's a hardship that he has to have that deck. That he has to have
2,000 square feet of home plus a full basement underneath it and a double car
garage, the double car garage is required, I think that there's just
overbuilding for this lot. That's the long and the short of it. I'm going to
vote against it.
Mayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to come up to the mic?
' Willard Johnson: I'd like to defend the first two issues of the variances up
the street. I was on the Board in both cases. We could have deemed them both
' unbuildable if we would have wished to and then does the City want to purchase
the property? That comes into effect and I feel this one here is the same
situation. If you want to maybe you can negotiate with the gentleman to chop
off the 10 foot deck. I'm always for negotiating if that's the proper procedure
and maybe he's willing to take the deck off because I don't see nothing wrong
with this piece of property either. I felt the same on the two in the past.
The gentleman says we could, they were unbuildable, you've got either two
It__ choices. Either make them unbuildable and the City buy them or that's all I
have to say.
I
23
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 i
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Willard you said that the previous two
were unbuildable. This is not any way unbuildable.
Willard Johnson: No, I didn't say. The gentleman here says the Board says they 111111
were unbuildable.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying the previous two were not unbuildable? ,
Willard Johnson: He says the previous two were unbuildable. I guess what I'm
getting at, he's trying to say that the Board says the previous two are
unbuildable. We could have just told than no, we won't grant no variance and if
the City didn't want to grant a variance, he couldn't build.
Councilman Boyt: That makes than unbuidable doesn't it? '
Willard Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so they were unbuildable? 11
Willard Johnson: Well you could put something on it. '
Councilman Boyt: 200 square feet or something?
Willard Johnson: Let me word it this way. There isn't a lot in this whole city I
you can't design to fit a house, even if it's 90 feet tall and 10 foot wide.
That's what I'm getting at.
Councilman Boyt: Alright, but what we were saying earlier was those two lots,
as you recall, would have required an extremely small house?-
Willard Johnson: Yes. '
Councilman Boyt: So we gave a variance to make them more buildable. This
allows a house of 1,300 square feet. Are you saying that makes it unbuildable? 1
Willard Johnson: I guess I compare it to some of the planned developments we've
got in this city and it's up in my neighborhood too. You've got, let's use x
number of dollars, $250,000.00 homes in there from lot line to lot line so
I guess how do you compare apples to organes? I guess he wants to put a decent
sized home on there and I feel that maybe you can chop off the deck if that's
what the Council would wish to bring it within the 75 foot of the lake. The
rest I have no problems with. The 5 foot on the west side. The 10 foot on the
east side and the street. I don't have no problem with that. If you wish to
chop 10 feet off the deck, I have no problem with that either. I'm not sticking
up for the applicant but I'm just saying, it's a hard thing to do. We've got
three areas in the City, Carver Beach is one, Red Cedar Point is one and Lake
Riley is another one. We've just got lots that you've got to work out
individually.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with you where a lot is unbuildable and the City has
to look at purchasing the lot or granting the variance but that's not the case
here.
1
24
City Council Meeting March 13, 1989
Willard Johnson: No, I realize that but what kind of home can you put on it?
I'm looking from the standpoint, a building standpoint too.
Councilman Boyt: A 1,200 square foot home.
I Willard Johnson: That sounds dumb. You might as well put up a good one in
order to put it up. Not that I'm sticking up for the applicant. Make a decent
home instead of a house that, he's going to put a garage in the bottom part so
you're losing quite a bit of home space. We require a 2 car garage. I don't
Iknow if it's a good arguing point. I hope I made my point clear.
Councilman Workman: I'm not going to argue with the expertise of Willard. To
I me it all looks like a little bit of a hardship case with these lots. Going all
the way back to when they were designed. To me it looks as though this is kind
of, this is cleaning up this lot a little bit and improving it. A bad situation
into maybe not as bad a situation. I'm going to take the advice of the Board of
iAppeals and approve this.
Councilman Boyt: Show me the hardship. Not that you have to but show me the
Ihardship.
Councilman Workman: You're right, I don't have to. But we've got a situation
I if you just look at this map right here alone and we've got problems with the
oranges. I don't see where, we can keep it the way it is and we've got all
sorts of problems along both sides. I don't see where taking this and bringing
it in, maybe up, bringing it closer to the lake. I'm looking at before and
after situations here. It's like the southern area of Chanhassen. It's not
going to turn into a wheat field down there no matter how hard we wish. This
situation, all along this lakeshore isn't going to improve because we wish it
I to. So to me, this is a situation, they're coming in and spending an awful lot
-- of money to improve a situation.
Councilman Boyt: Well, why don't we just have them build it up to the lake
then?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's silly. Let me ask Mr. Jessup, would you be willing
to remove your deck from that particular building?
James Jessup: I would ask if you would be willing to buy a lake house without a
deck?
Mayor Chmiel: I might.
I James Jessup: The neighbors on one side of me have.. .and the neighbors on the
other side have a three season porch and they have a door in... Decks and a
lake home go together. Look at the pictures that I provided you. You'll see
many decks on Lake Riley.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question. Bill's concern is the setback 68
feet to be in conformance with the other homes. Would you be willing to cut 3
feet off that deck?
James Jessup: It makes it very difficult to put a table on top of that deck.
We have a round table.
11 25
City Council Meeting - Ma 13, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: What's the total length of that deck? Is the total 10 feet?
James Jessup: It's 10 foot width but...would be less than 7. By the time you
get a railing you have a 6 1/2 foot wide deck to put a nice round table...how do
you get around it? 1
Mayor Chmiel: I've got one. My deck is exactly that and we have a round table
on it. '
Don Ashworth: If I may ask the question. The 3 feet wouldn't necessarily have
to come off the deck. It would be maybe adjusting deck and house. The
important point is that it's back 68 feet. It would appear as though your plan
might be able to be adjusted to allow the back portion to be increased one
dimension slightly more to lose the 3 feet the other way.
Councilman Johnson: To follow on that Don, how big is your garage? I don't see ,
any dimensions on here?
James Jessup: It's 23 1/2 by...
Councilman Johnson: Saying that the existing pump house is the existing setback
where I think they went to the -wall of the house rather than the pump house I
before but that's 16 foot. Sliding the house forward to meet the existing 16
foot setback, going to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus the 23 1/2, losing a foot
and a half there. Sliding the entire house to the right to give you a little 111
more because if you lost a little bit there. Then we're to a 9 1/2 foot deck.
See what I'd say is go to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus a 23 1/2 x 23 1/2. I
realize that that's getting small but that's what I've got actually is a 22 x 22
and my wife's big Chevy fits in there with my little Horizon. I think that
would also give you a little bit more on your west side if you went a little
narrower on• the garage. If there's anything you can cheat on and not mess up
your living space, it's your garage. You just have to walk a little tigher when '
you bang your doors into each other's cars.
Councilman Workman: How much are we going to gain by doing this?
Councilman Johnson: We'll gain 2 1/2 feet if we cut a foot and a half off the
e
garage and slide it towards the street a foot to get to the 16 foot mark. That
gives us 2 1/2 feet so take a half foot off his deck, he's added a 68 foot.
He's got a 9 1/2 foot deck. So he has not exceeded 'the previous deck footprint
of the previous variance that was on there. I think it's workable. It's not
that big of a deal. I
Councilman Boyt: That would certainly be acceptable from my standpoint because
we're not exceeding any variances...
Councilman Johnson: In the existing condition.
Councilman Boyt: In the existing condition. I
Mary Ellen Jessup: How does that affect then what we discussed during the
Board of Adjustments? One of the addendums or whatever where you mentioned that
we had to use that exact footprint as the exhibit for approval? For this permit
26 1
City Council Meeting jr7 _ch 13, 1989
II4r— to construct? How does that affect it?
Councilman Johnson: We're modifying it.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's being modified right now. The Council has the final consent
for proceeding with what you have. As it looks right now, you're looking at a 2
' to 2 vote where it's not going to go anywhere so I think discuss this with your
husband real quickly to see whether or not you can go in that particular way.
Mary Ellen Jessup: What I needed to know is, are we going to have to cane back
for an appeal?
Mayor Chmiel: No. It could be resolved right now and see it proceed.
Councilman Johnson: While it seems like we're really measuring the straws to an
inch degree when we talk about a half foot there, but it does seen to crawl on
you. A half foot this time. A foot, just to give then some time to get sane
patter going here.
James Jessup: If we would establish the guidelines as being a 16 foot setback
'
from the road and 68 from the lake and let us maneuver around inside the house
and let us make the tradeoff for whether shrink the garage 2 feet or whether we
shrink something else a little bit, is that agreeable?
Councilman Johnson: Fine.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's a part of what the conditions basically are.
F-
James Jessup: Very good. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval as just mentioned that we retain the 68
foot setback from the lake. The 16 foot setback from the Lake Riley Blvd.. 10
feet from the property to the east. And is it 7 feet?
Councilman Johnson: It's 5 unless he gets the property next door. Then it goes
to 7.
' Councilman Boyt: Are you going to work out the property next door?
Don Sitter: We'll certainly work together. I guess I would like to ask one
' more consideration of the Council here. Your suggestion of him shrinking the
garage and pulling in another couple feet off of my property will help my
attitude a lot. Could we make that instead of the 5 foot setback from his
' property line, 7 or 8 foot setback and have that...
Councilman Boyt: I don't think his garage isn't over on that side of the house.
1 Don Sitter: No. What I'm saying is shrink the garage so he can pull it farther
off of my property.
Councilman Boyt: No, I don't think that was how that was going to work Don.
Councilman Johnson: I was doing that too Bill. That was in my suggestion too
is make the garage narrower and then they could move further away from the 5
27
City Council Meeting - Ma 13, 1989
foot setback. The existing condition is that he's 2 1/2 feet into your
property. This would be an improvement over being 2 1/2 feet into your property
by 7 1/2 feet but this fence remains into your property quite a bit when it gets
down to the lake.
Don Sitter: But as I mentioned in the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, right
now that garage is on our property but it acts as a buffer between their
activities and ours. It's like a little wall or fence. By removing that
garage, all the activities are coming around our side of the property. That's
why I'm standing on that setback a little bit. I
Councilman Boyt: I would make the motion that it's either 5 feet or 7 feet.
I'm open. To follow my logic, we're staying in the existing footprint and to me
that's critical. So the'situation with the garage I think is maybe something
you can work out in your property swap, if you're going to swap property but
from my standpoint of protecting our ordinances, I think we don't want to exceed
the existing building footprint and 68 feet from the lake is part of that.
Councilman Johnson: Previously, the closest sideyard setbacks was 6.8 feet. On
the previous house. If you don't count the garage. Now his closest sideyard '
setback is going to be 5 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Well I hate to get into a situation where we've got a
negotiations that's open ended.
Councilman Johnson: So what do you want the west side property setback in your
motion? That's what we're down to.
Mayor Chmiel: That presently is 5 feet right?
Councilman Boyt: Presently it says it's 5 feet. We all agree 5 feet? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, 5 feet.
Councilman Boyt: 5 1/2? I would make my motion that it's 10 feet on the west
side and 5.5 feet on the east side. 68 feet from the lake and 16 feet from Lake
Riley Blvd.. If you can work out something better between you, marvelous but I I
think from the City's standpoint we've got to require that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? '
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
James Jessup: I'd rather you keep it 10 feet from the east side. ,
Councilman Johnson: We did.
James Jessup: You said west. ,
•
Councilman Boyt: Which side do you want what on Willard?
Willard Johnson: 10 foot from the east side.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, and what do we do on the west side? I
28 '
IFCity Council Meeting - M,,rch 13, 1989
Willard Johnson: 5.5. The reasons I come up. ..
1
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the variances to
1 the front, side and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a new single
family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard with the following setbacks: 68
feet from the lake, 16 feet from Lake Riley Boulevard, 10 feet from the east
side of the property and 5.5 feet from the west side of the property. A11 voted
in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEEENT PROJECT NO. 87-17 FOR THE NORTH SIDE PARKING
1 LOT.
B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH SIDE PARKING
LOT.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Gary Warren: I don't know that it needs much of an introduction. I didn't see,
our facsimile machine at the last minute today a letter came in from Mericor the
owners of the Town Square retail center. They're in support of the project.
Just had a concern about the assessment issue as far as the 23 parking units
that were added to the building which I guess from an assessment standpoint,
this is not an assessment hearing but the discussion and the request in the
letter is appropriate that City staff meet with them to explain the rationale
' and that. Basically I'll speak for Fred Hoisington but in general terms, they
were added to the assessment roll for two purposes. One, they have drainage
that flows to this new parking lot area for which we will be accommodating their
flow. Secondly, because they have a more intense use than what was originally
planned and that intense use ends up using more parking stalls and has impacts
on the Riveria.. .they were assessed the parking and 23 units so we have gone
through and applied the logic basically from that standpoint.. But we certainly
' will follow up as requested in the letter and talk with Mr. Winkle from Mericor
and review that with him. There will be the option at the assessment for
getting further into that when the project is complete.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this public hearing?
11 Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Brad Johnson. 7425
Frontier Trail representing the Heritage Park Apartments and the professional
building. We've gone on record in your, I believe the staff also outlines the
fact that we do not feel nor do our experts, whoever they are, they're not here
tonight, that there's additional need for the water line that's furnishing the
water to the hydrant. That's an additional cost to the project of $50,000.00.
We've been requested by the City to upgrade our building from originally,
especially the apartment building, from the original unsprinkled building to a
totally sprinkled building with additional costs to us of $100,000.00 thus far.
In checking with all those that know and we're willing to listen but we have not
heard anybody feel that the additional fire hydrants on the south side of the
apartment building is anything but overkill in the case of fire protection. In
I29
02, 1
CITYOF -
L
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 .
� Action by Crty
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals - `—
Date Set%,ea to L
FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I
Date io
DATE: February 20, 1990 2,-.1 -
,,.- ,- O ,
SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard,
James Jessup ,
On March 13 , 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
variance request #89-1 for the front, rear and both side yards '
setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was informed that his property is con-
taminated with petroleum products; therefore, the City Building
Inspector and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October
13 , 1989 . The contamination is for a gasoline storage tank used
for seaplanes operating from the lake. The variance will expire
on March 13 , 1990 unless the owner starts construction before
that date. The applicant expects construction to resume some
time in mid-summer of 1991. The applicant is requesting an
extension of the variance until one year after the receipt of
certification by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stating
that the site is ready to be built upon. The rationale for the
year is that it will take time to evaluate if design changes are
necessary to prevent contamination from re-entering the site or
the structure itself. Staff recommends the extension be granted.
While we support the variance extension, it should be made clear ,
that the gas tank was a non-conforming use and it is staff' s
position that it should not be replaced.
ATTACHMENTS I
1. Letter from applicant.
2. Staff Report dated March 8, 1989. •
3 . City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989.
4 . City Council minutes dated February 27, 1989.
II
r
I
' January 30, 1990
Jo Ann Olsen
Sr. Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Variance extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Jo Ann:
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension for the
' variance of the above referenced property. This letter is in
response to the conversation you had with Gary Hempel, the City
Engineer, concerning the delay in the construction of the house
on the referenced property.
The delay in the construction is forced because of the
discovery of an unknown condition that exists on the property.
' The condition is subsurface contamination of petroleum products.
The city building inspector and fire marshall issued a stop work
order on October 13, 1989. The source and total area impacted
are not known at this time. It is expected to take some time to =
' determine the source, area involved, a appropriate plan of
action, and time to execute the plan. It maybe midsummer of 1991
before construction may resume.
Therefore, I am asking for an extension of the variance until
one year after the receipt of certification by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency stating the site is ready to be built
upon. The rationale for the year is that it will take time to
evaluate if design changes are necessitated to prevent
contamination from reentering the site or the structure itself.
I can be called at 341-6028 during the day if you have any
questions.
' Thanks for your prompt handling of this request.
Sincerely,
�.15Af
James F. Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Ct.
Chaska, MN 55318
FEB 0 21999
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
e,. S.B.Cumming
President s
J.E.Findley
Chief Executive Officer
Environmental Services, Inc. c.1).Vieau '
Executive Vice President
Ms. Jo Anne Olson February 5, 1991
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55318
1
RE: JESSUP PROPERTY LOCATED AT
9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
Dear Ms. Olson:
On behalf of Mr. James Jessup I am writing this letter to present my concern about the variance '
status being considered for the property located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen,
Minnesota.
In October, 1989 strong gasoline odors were encountered in the footing excavation at the above
g
address. Two underground gasoline tanks on a neighboring property were determined to be the
source of the gasoline. Over 600 cubic yards of gasoline impacted soil was excavated from
around the tanks and Jessups property. Due to site constraints not all of the impacted soil was
excavated. To date, the full impact of the gasoline release has not been determined.
Mr. Jessups immediate concern is the potential for gasoline vapors to migrate back onto his
property and enter his proposed residence.
Liesch and Associates has designed and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) a remediation system that they feel will adequately address the gasoline vapor concern.
As per my conversation on February 5, 1991 with MPCA staff assigned to this site. The MPCA
has not yet review or approved the remediation design nor have they issued a letter indicating
that the release has been adequately investigated.
t
..t i Y OF CHANHA:)�t1
an equal opportunity employer
Suite 400 Hazeltine Gates 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard Chaska,MN 55318
612/448-9393 FAX 448-9572
111
Ms. Jo Anne Olson —2— February 5, 1991
City of Chanhassen
Nova feels until these issues are resolved it would be premature to expect Mr. Jessup to begin
construction.
fSincerely,
NOVA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1
David J. Koubsky
Hydrogeologist
Group Manager
1 DJK:ab
1 pc: Ms. Janet Berryhill, MPCA
Mr. James Jessup --
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
1
I
1
QUICK MEMORANDUM FORM
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
520 Lafayette Road
St.Paul, Minnesota 55155 RECEIVED
Telephone (612) 296-6300
Date: February 4, 1991 F EB 0 61991
TO: tharmin Al-Jaff
City of Chanhassen CI l t yr 4nANHASSE
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
FROM: Janet Berryhill
Tanks and Spills ection
Division of Hazardous Waste
(612) 643-3427
=====
RE: Summary of Our February 28, 1991 Phone Conversation
Site: Remus Residence
Site ID#: LEAK00001700
The purpose of this memo is to summarize our February 28, 1990 phone
conversation regarding the cleanup work on the properties belonging to Rudy
Remus and Jim Jessup on Lake Riley Boulevard.
As we discussed, Mr. Remus' underground gasoline tanks were removed in April ,
1990. A large amount of petroleum contaminated soil was removed, however some
contaminated soil remains, and ground water under the site has probably been
impacted.
MPCA staff asked Mr. Remus to design and install a system to protect Mr.
Jessup's house from the petroleum contamination that remains at the site. This.
system would include a gas vapor barrier on Mr. Jessup's house, and a venting
system at the tank basin on Mr. Remus' property. Mr. Jessup could not go
ahead and build his house until Mr. Remus' consultant designed the gas vapor
barrier. '
The gas vapor barrier was not designed for many months because Mr. Remus'
consultant would not design it until they had been paid for previous work. Mr.
Remus could not pay his consultant until he was reimbursed by the MPCA tanks
program. Mr. Remus received his reimbursement check from the State of
Minnesota on November 24, 1990, and paid his consultant.
Then, on November 27, 1990, Mr. Jessup informed the MPCA that he did not want a
vapor barrier installed on his house, and that any system designed to protect
his house would have to be on Remus property. The MPCA met with both parties
and their consultants on December 17, 1990 to discuss alternative protective
systems. The following was agreed upon:
A vapor barrier will not be installed on Mr. Jessup's house. I
Mr. Remus' consultant will be installing a well to determine whether ground
water was impacted by the gasoline release, and designing and installing a
venting system on Remus property to vent gas vapors from the remaining
contaminated soil.
I
1
Sharmin Al-Jaff
' Page 2
February 4, 1990
For added protection, Mr. Jessup's consultant will be designing a clay barrier
to be installed between Mr. Remus' old tank basin and Mr. Jessup's house.
If you have any questions about this memo, please call me at 612/643-3427.
== ======
' This informal way of responding to you saves us the time and expense of pre-
paring- a formal letter. Please contact us if we can help you further or you
have questions on this matter.
' Regional Offices: Duluth, Brainerd, Detroit Lakes, Marshall, Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
copy 1-addressee copy 2-site file
1
t
1
I
I