6a. Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory dwellings C IT Y O F PC DATE: 10/2/91 6 ,
\ cHANHAssEN
�I ' CC DATE: 11/4/91
1
�y CASE #: 91-10
By: Olsen:v
STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Amending Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code Concerning Accessory Dwellings
IQ LOCATION:
(0 - 30-9/
IEl APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
(L
a
I
I
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
I LAND USE: N -
S -
E -
0 W -
WATER AND SEWER:
W
IPHYSICAL CHARACTER. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
I
I
ZOA for Accessory Dwellings
October 2, 1991
Page 2
1 BACKGROUND
' On August 26, 1991, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed
a variance request to allow a second summer residence to be located
on property zoned RSF and located on Lots 8, 9 and 10, and a
portion of Lot 7, Sunset Hill subdivision. The subject parcel
' contains an existing summer cabin and a new four bedroom residence
is being constructed. The cabin is located only a few feet from
the right-of-way of Dogwood Road. City ordinances also provide
' that there may be only one primary dwelling per lot and the
construction of the new home would create a non-conforming
situation. The applicant received a building permit for the new
' dwelling. The building permit was issued with the condition that
the existing cabin be maintained only as a storage building and
that all power and utilities be disconnected to ensure that it
would not be used for habitation. A notice was also placed in the
' chain of title indicating that the cabin was not to be used as a
dwelling. Once the home was constructed, the applicant submitted
an application for a variance to allow the cabin to remain as a
' summer home for family gatherings.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended tabling action on
the variance request until the city could develop an ordinance
amendment that would allow for the location of a guest home on a
residential single family lot. The Board indicated to the
applicant that the City would consider such an ordinance change in
' the future but did not guarantee that it would be adopted.
SUMMARY
' The City Attorney has submitted an amendment to Chapter 20 which
adds accessory dwelling to the definitions, adds specific
requirements for an accessory dwelling and allows accessory
dwellings as a conditional use in the RSF District. An accessory
dwelling is proposed to be defined as:
' A second dwelling unit on the same lot as a single family
dwelling for use by the household employees, relatives, or
social guests of the occupant of the main dwelling.
' The specific regulations for a conditional use permit for accessory
dwellings are as follows:
' 1. The floor area of the accessory dwelling may not exceed 50% of
the floor area of principal dwelling.
2. The accessory dwelling may not have a separate driveway curb
cut.
1
ZOA for Accessory Dwellings '
October 2, 1991
Page 3
3 . The accessory dwelling must have been constructed at least ten 1
years prior to the construction of the principal dwelling.
Staff was directed to process the ordinance amendment by the Board I
of Adjustments in reaction to the variance request. It should be
noted that staff could not find justification for granting the
variance and was recommending denial.
1
Even though the zoning ordinance amendment is formulated to be
fairly site specific, staff is not comfortable with approving an
ordinance amendment which would allow accessory dwellings. Each
year staff receives several requests from lots adjacent to lakes
who have existing accessory structures and wish to convert them to
a summer cabin. There is the potential for such accessory
dwellings to become rental properties without the city being aware
of the situation.
Staff is not in favor of the proposed ordinance amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their October 2 ,
1991, meeting. The Commissioners unanimously recommended denial.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council deny the zoning ordinance
amendment allowing accessory dwellings.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated October 2 , 1991.
2 . Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes dated October 14 ,
1991, and August 26, 1991.
3 . Staff report.
4 . Proposed ordinance amendment.
1
Plannin-D Commission Meeting
Octobc 2 , 1�ql - Page 12
2 . Th,: applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of the proposed sign . A
clparate sign permit is required .
3 . The applicant shall provide a revised parking plan consistent with
staff 's recommendation .
4 . The applicant will provide detailed drawings of the proposed lightincl
pl _ n
a ' The applicant shall submit a revised grading and utility plan
including size , type and elevation of storm sewer and obtain and
comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit .
h Prrvide B-622 concrete curb and gutter around parking lots and
driveway Increase parking lot pavement to standards outlined in the
N� r~po t
anJ incorporate city 's typical industrial/commercial driveway
d ' tajl . Add catch basins in driveway access to catch runoff before
clr= r-2 into Perk Place . Fill existing ditch along Park Place with
storm :Ewer extensions .
7 ha.' bales around catch basins until the bituminoL: is
8 . Sc - ' c; soc', all disturbed areas .
N� p . Incta ] l fire hydrant north of the driveway on Park Place .
approval for Site Plan #89 -9 Rome Office Building .
. 11 . The applicant shall include windows and glazed block as set forth in
the staff report Or shall provide alternatives acceptable to city
staff such as landscaping and other building accents respectively .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
N� Emminq7 : Thic goes to the City Council on October 26th ' You can follow it
there .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS .
N� Public Present:
Name� Address
m� Willard Johnson Chairman , Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Paul Krause presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
N� calle� thc public hearing to order .
Willard Johnson: I guess I was discussing something with Paul . I 'm the
Chsirmrn of the Board . I wasn 't there that night . I was out of town so I
guess I ^vc vot a feeling I can find a million holes in the darn thing .
1
rl ,Jnr n? Commission Meeting
Cc t c,bc r 2 , 1 2r'1 - Page 13
I
Er h._.1 t • In what , the ordinance?
Willard Joh-nson : In this proposed . I was just telling Paul , I 'm going to
corn: up next year when I want to put my motorhome up for the summer for my
kids . He said you can 't do it . I 've lived in the city since 1956 . I 've
got a motorhome that 's 1964 so I qualify in that 10 year bracket . I know
farm= r: around here that have . . .particular case is in Watertown . Watertown
township wh°re th -y 've got a chicken house made into a home and a grainery.
and I guess. there 's a number of farmers in the city . I 'm just looking for II
loophole_ . I had a 40 acre parcel here last year . I was on the other sid._
of tb,c table at the County, In order to qualify for selling the land , we
h=• : couple that wanted to buy 5 acres off the property and then the othe
35 they 'd take Contract for Deed . Well we had to dismantle the existing
home a th r., they could have it and if they had defaulted , well the
deal fr= 3 3 through but if they had defaulted on 35 acres I would have been
out cf - u,_ �1;, _ S o I guess there the County said no , you can 't do it and
I had I guess this is a little different situation but I just
fE 1 now , i- - , I can bring my motor home and I can request it . Paul says
it 's Lire:, c.f an iffy situation but I 'm just throwing loopholes at you . Or
if ; can a piece of property and you 've got an old shed sitting back
t - re f - , 1 ;ears and say gee , I 'd like my kids that are coming from out
of s.t '- t • to spend the summer thei e . I 'm totally against it . I don 't konw
how m, cr•mrade •= feel on the Board but I wasn 't there that night and
I hav:er 't discussed it with them but I 'm heartedly against it .
Batali : Why are you against it? What 's wrong with having a little bunk I
Wi_'lar =', Johnson : I 've been on this board a couple of years and , long
yeers . frot:,ably longer than most of you people have been in the city , and
I 'vc Z_EEfl EC. much stuff we 've fought through the city . We 've tried to keep
• e -1:, ) 3 ; d "_ nt. standard . Maybe we failed someplace in our variances but 1
in `err rating 4 verience but this is leaving this wide open .
6;. t._ '. . W r,; ,_ fo•- what? What 's wrong with it? What 's going to happe
that '., bed?
Willard Johnson: You 're going to come up and ask me a year from now I want
a variance to add . . .and make that into a summer home .
I
Batcli : No because I live in a PUD . I can 't put anything on it but that 's
another story .
Willard Johnson: Yeah , but say you 're living in , I hope some of you peopl -
understand this . You 're living in not a planned development . One of the
older parts . We have trouble with Lake Riley . We have trouble with Red
Ceder Pein'. and trouble at Carver Beach . Some guy 's going to develop one
of them lots down there and say gee I want to keep this old cabin for
m ail,_u , . I
Batzli : I think of my in-laws place up in Annandale and everybody up and
dLwr the lake hue a little old cabin from one of the resorts that went out
of buci „:c= . I don 't see anything wrong with it .
1
Planning Commission; Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 14
You haven 't been on this Board as long as I have and you
ha; _ . 't fuught the conditions . They ' ll haunt you .
IBatzli : I know they ' ll haunt . I 'm trying to get something that 's actually
bad . I h:-ar the horror story but I don 't hear the horror . I mean what
I hap,=•_ t hat bad? Do people actually , they convert chicken coups and
that '= bad and we 're trying to avoid that?
I Willard Johnson : . . . I can show you two farms right now where they 've got
multiple dwellings on it .
Batzli : IL- there something inherently bad with multiple dwellings? Is
that what 's bad?
El ] ac ' : We21 one of the things they were talking about here is like people
will start i ent i ri g it out and things like that .
E?E:a71i : (Aright, ao wo: 'vF got a carriage house in Minneapolis that 's being
rf_ n' ' - that bad? I 'm trying to find out what 's bad about having
p, c <cr t, on your land .
I'r r
U- 21 Mr . Eatzl i , I think you 're raising a point , which is one of
' tb-_ i nt the t I Ir•�v�_� witf this ordinance . This ordinance isn 't dealing
with r - 1 ) those things that you 're talking about . It 's dealing with one
E'_ i - 1 . grc :. . I 'rm just trying to find out what 's wrong with it in
I do we say one house per lot? We have all kinds of good
reasonar fe; saying that .
Eut we 're not asking for a house . We 're not asking for , I mean
this is accessory . This is a bunk house . I could picture examples where
this would be finc .
IKrauss : Yeah , I could too if all properties were regulated equitably .
Emmin .s : This is getting real loose . Willard , we want to give you a
I chance to make your comments on this and I think we 've got them . Is there
anything you 'd like to add to that?
I Willard Johnson: I ' ll just give you a for instance . . . .there 's about , they
were grandfathered in . There was about 4 or 5 illegal duplexes and
triplexes. . We fought the City when we were young , the neighbors and I .
Let 's cut it down . The City didn 't do nothing about it and now it 's
getting better and they 're getting better clientele but in the years we
used to have drug bunches in there and everything else and it got to be
son of a gun to clean it up . We had the Sheriff up there all the time .
I I m>- ..gin there 's things that just slip through the cracks that the City Hall
and them can 't control . I don 't know why you people can 't see it . I 've
grown up v! th this city . I was in the township growing up and I guess I 'm
trying to get my point across that you 're going to cause a problem .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 15
I
Emmings - Thank you . Now we 've got public hearing open and there 's nobody
else hre . Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Erhart : I think there 's two issues here . One is the issue of using an
ordinance to be dirryct.:d at one individual and I think there 's a name for
that called spot ordinance . Spot zoning or spot ordinance . To me that is
outrageous that we have spent city money in creating an ordinance at one
particular individual . I think it 's ridiculous and I think it 's
outrageous . Okay , so that really upsets me because that 's not what we 're
all about here . That 's the first time that I can remember in what , I gues
it 's almost 6 years I 've been out here , I 've seen us attempt to do that .
The ream once issue is , the whole subject of accessory dwellings and I , like
Brian , don 't know the merits or dismerits of that . Now if we want to turn
this around , if we 're really serious about creating an ordinance to allow
peopi - io ha- - accessory dwellings , then we should make it a well thought
through ordinance and let 's determine what the bad things and the good
thin ): and horror stories are because I could certainly envision , I have a
farm i•!i i l�,r d and I can certainly envision . I thought it 'd be pretty neat a
coups - time to have a guest house when family comes over and someplace
out_,id� th€ house . In fact I just visited one in Eden Prairie this week
whet , th-y Fu=, - a guest house . I don 't know what the problems are and if w
wani to tal,s that on as an ordinance , then let 's take that on as an
ordin n, e hut this to me I think is terrible that we 're looking at one
little pJ :-e and then we 're creating around that particular site .
Emrr n^- Without considering the range of problems . ,
Er h r t : That 's right . If we 're going to take about an ordinance , then
let 's set our goals and our intentions . Let 's do it right .
Emm:i ncs ' Ladd .
Cone_ - I agree . 1
Emming: : You 're saving your comments again .
Conrad : No , no . I think that 's real valid . This is not acceptable and II
we 'd have to turn that down and we couldn 't give it a positive . If we
think there is some merit to allowing a secondary living quarters on a
parcel , then I think we should review it and give it more merit . Yet on
the other , more time . The question is that the way we want to prioritize
staff time . This is the first time I 've seen such a request . I don 't know
if we have a lot of needs like that in the City so my gut feel is not to
address it .
Emmings : Okay . Annette .
Ellson : I don 't like it . I don 't think we should address it .
Emmings : I think we know how Brian feels . Should we ask him anyway? I
•
Planninj Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1921 - Page 16
Conrad : Yeah , let 's ask him .
11 Emmings : Brian , how do you feel about it?
Batzli : I agree with Tim .
' Ernmi ngs : Jeff?
' Farmakes : I 'd agree with what 's been said but the one reservations I 'd
have is that in issues of lake homes and how they were developed . Many of
the lakes here have had cabins on them or small dwellings . Much smaller
than would be sellable now and the question comes , if those are habitable
' and they 've been in existence since World War II or there abouts where
things were a little looser out here . You see a lot of property say in
Minnetonka that they 're 90 feet wide . Very small type cabin type
dwe] iing_ I 'd like to address that as a separate issue and get into
breaking out these dwellings because I think you may get into a situation
where we allow for that dwelling now for the person to develop their
property in a modern way that is sellable or makes sense under the present
realty type situation . If they 're going to have to tear those type of
structures down , they may be suffering a severe financial loss . I can see
where thi=: pear son wants to do this .
Ernminge : What these people want to do this property , given their
individual history on this property seems like kind of a reasonable thing
' to do . I 'm just kind of trying to weigh the fairness of this thing . It
seem= like kind of a reasonable thing for here but on the other hand , a
deal 's a deal and they said we won 't use it and now they 've got their house
that they wanted and now they want to use it so that 's real unfair . So on
the fairness side I think it 's kind of a wash . I think this is a totally
improper way to accomplish what night be a reasonable goal for this family
on this property . And° I agree with Tim . We either look at it in general .
I trine the horror or the danger here is I thought about having , liking to
have e second structure on my lot . I 've got a lakeshore lot . I 'm 250 feet
back from the shore . It 'd be fun to have a little summer cabin type thing
' down there to spend some summer nights in . Maybe have people stay over in .
And we 're in a single family residential area . We 're going to wind up with
potentially , you know having two houses on every lot and is that what you
want? You 're really asking what is our single family residential area? Is
' it two? Now we 've got a garage . I 've got a separate garage . I 've got a
house . Now I 've got a separate building that I can let guests stay in or I
can rent out . That 's really a change of character for the single family
area I think but those are part of the issues I think Tim 's talking about
to look at in a broader kind of way . I don 't like this at all . You had
something else to add Willard?
' Willard Johnson: I was talking to the gentleman up on the end there , Jeff?
We 've aot people on Lake Riley coming in with cabins and they want to tear
them down . I ' ll go to bat for them to get a decent home on there . I 've
' fought many a times . In fact we 've got one now that can 't get under
construction with the pollution . The State and the City stopped them but
I went to bat for the guy so he could build a good value home on there and
get rid of the cabin . I feel comfortable , even though I fight the
Planning Commission Meeting II
October 2 , 1991 - Page 17
ordinance , city
I
inaiCE� , c y ordinances , to say you 're bending them a little bit to get
a decent home if they do away with the cabin .
Emmings : On Minnetonka they 're tearing down relatively new homes to build
bigger , newer homes . I just don 't think the financial , I think the
marketplace will take care of that stuff .
I
Farmakes: I think that 's something though that 's something valid to look
at when somebody 's considering that .
II
Emmings : And that clearly didn 't happen here .
Erhart : Well then the real question is , does anybody want us to look to I
making an ordinance for accessory dwellings?
Emminge- : No . The first issue is right here . Does someone want to make a
motion on this?
Erhait : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing accessory dwellings as written in the
staff report .
IIBatzli : Second .
Emmings: Any discussion?
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that tIK Planning Commission recommend denial
of Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Accessory Structures as written in
the staff report . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings : Now , does anybody want to look at this issue? The issue of I
accesE•or y dwellings . •
Erhart : How many requests have we had for these kinds of things? How I
often dD we get these requests? Does anybody even ask?
Krauss : Well , see they 're illegal in Chanhassen so when we find out about,
them we make them come in for some building .
Erhart : Most people what? They start building and then we catch them?
I
Krauss : Yes .
Erhart: How often? I
Krauss : Well no . You know I went through this in Minnetonka where we wer
convinced that in a city of 45 ,000 we had hundreds of illegal accessory
apartments . Now that could be somebody in the garage . It could be
somebody in the walkout basement .
Emmings : Well now you can do that here . That 's not illegal in Chanhassen
Krauss : Yes it is .
I
II
IPlanning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 18
Erhart : Mother-in-law apartments are not legal?
II Emmings : As long as you have the same , as long as you don 't have a
separate entrance .
IKrauss : rind a separate kitchen .
Emmings : And separate utilities .
I Krause : Right . It functions as a single . We don 't want to get involved
in people 's living situations but if you want to have a separate entrance .
If you want to have , even combined utilities . The main problem with these
I accessory dwellings is a couple things . Sometimes they cause neighborhood
problems because you find out , even look in the Sunday paper and I 'm sure
you ' ll find some in your neighborhood . But these were built without
I permits normally . A lot of them . Most of them . Well it had to be because
we woul_n 't authorize a permit and you find that you have basement
dwellings, without egress windows and no smoke alarms and no fire breaks and
thing= like that . Now Minnetonka is an aging community at this point and
1 we hoc' a lot of , and Minneapolis went through this too . We had a lot of
people who moved in , had their kids and became empty nesters but didn 't
want to move from their homes . One of the ways you can make a home more
I affordable is to be able to rent out a portion of it . For that and for
some other reasons , public safety mainly , the City adopted standards for
accessory dwellings and they regulated things like the amount of cars that
II could be parked . The size of the lot . The fact that a home couldn 't be
built this way because then it 's built as a defacto duplex . But that the
home had to be a few years old before you could apply for this and it was
done as a conditional use permit so it was open for public review .
I . Emmings : Let me ask of Tim or Jeff seem to be maybe interested in looking
at this . Are we only talking first of all about the single family zoning
Iare, ae far ae accessory structures are concerned or more broadly?
Erhart : Yeah , I would think if we 're going to do this , you go RR .
I Emminge : But just looking at the single family for a minute , why would you
want to spend any time looking at an ordinance that would allow you either
to construct a duplex or a defacto duplex or two dwellings on the same lot
I in the single family area? We have never allowed that . Why would we even
want to bring it up?
IErhart : If there was a frequent desire to do that .
Emmings : Well we 've never seen one .
I Erhart : Well no . That 's not what I 'm hearing . We haven 't seen one
because it 's illegal here . It wouldn 't come to us .
I Krause: We haven 't seen very many situations that they 're not legal that
you ha" e two free standing buildings which is the case here . We know we
have guarantee you we have dozens and dozens of illegal ones built into an
existing house .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
Octokcr 2 , 1991 - Page 19
Emmings : To me I don 't know if it 's compatible with the notion of the
single family residential area but maybe that 's an issue and that 's what
wf have tc talk about .
Erhart : My feeling is if we were to do something like this , one of the
conditions I would set is a minimum lot size of 30 ,000 feet on a separate II
one . In that case it would not be compatible in a neighborhood . In a
typical subdision that we 've seen in the last 10 years and that is a 20 ,000
square feet and under house . But let 's say a guy , and I 'm not suggesting
that we do this but I 'm just talking here . You know maybe if a guy had
these 2 1/2 acre lots , maybe 1 acre .
Batzli : Are we inviting trouble? '
EllEon: Yes . I think so .
Fi-31maker.s : I saw that if there 's an existing structure of a little
structure that 's already in existence and there 's something peculiar about
that piece of property . We 're not talking about a chicken coop here , or I�
wouldn 't be . Making it habitable . We 're talking about something in
existence that you basically would have to tear down to utilize the rest of
the property . It may be an issue where that 's not desireable .
Emminas : Yo,.. could see making exceptions . What if somebody had a piece o
property with a real old log cabin that had been there forever and now the
want to come in and build a house but they want to keep the log cabin .
hrausL : But it 's not habitable .
Emn;ings : That 's right . You don 't care as long as it doesn 't have '
electricity or sewer .
•
Aenenron: Exactly . It can 't become a rental property or something . '
Kraus" ' Now th,_ situations that Jeff is referring to , the Board has been
ver y {legible in working with people who are trying to use grandfathered ill
non-conforming structures on lake cabins on Lake Riley . In fact we change
the ordinance for variances because of it . To enable them to build upon
these relics and make them current state-of-the-art homes . But most of
the time these are non-conforming as to location and if you are truly goin
to build a completely separate new home , in this case we have a house
sitting 4 feet off the traveled right-of-way . In other cases you may have
it sitting off the beach or off the street or whatever . There 's a reason
why non-conformities are supposed to ultimately , through the life cycle , b
replaced and not perpetuated . I don 't know that you 'd really want to
undermind that . '
Emmings: Let 's do this . Let 's go down the line here and tell us whether
or not you think that we ought to spend time looking at an ordinance or
staff ought to spend time looking at an ordinance on accessory dwellings .
Tim?
Erhart : No . '
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 20
Emmings : Ladd .
0�
Conrad: No .
Emmings : Annette '
m� Ellson: No way .
Emmings : Brian .
Batzli : It should go somewhere way down the list .
Emmings : Okay , Jeff .
Farmakes : Somewhere down the list .
N� Emo'inQs : Okay , and I 'd say no . Why don 't you run that straw vote by the
City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to
spend time on it . Then we ' ll go from there -
WilIerd
Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres .
N� Erhart : That was no gentleman . That was me .
Willard Johnson: ' ' .when we were granting variances to the southern part
cf th,_ city there for building . ' 'we pushed them to one side of the lot .
Erhart : Not anymore . It used to be that way .
I Will�rd Johnson : We encouraged them to push to one side of tho lmt bocouoe
� comc dfty ymu `re going to develop and can 't afford to keep the property .
Wr11 this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sells
N� off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes . Just a small
development on 2 1/2 acres . . 'so I just thought I 'd throw that at you
paup]c . I 've seen so much . Thank you .
0�
Emmings : Yeah , thank you .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
~~ Paul Krauss presented the staff report .
Ellson : I have a question . What 's an over story tree?
Krauss : It 's a deciduous tree with a crown on it .
N� Ellson: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top Story of the
house or something .
N� Kraucc : Hopefully it will be .
Erhart : Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping .
�� Emmings : Yeah . What did we call those trees in our landscape ordinance?
I
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS II
MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 14, 1991
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Tom I
Workman.
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director, Roger Knutson, City
II
Attorney and 'Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. 1
Addition of a Garage to an Existing Single Family Residence on a
Nonconforming Lot, 10241 Mandan Circle. Paul Weld I
Al-Jaff presented the staff report.
Watson made a motion to approve the variance. Workman seconded the
II
motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A 51 Foot Setback Variance from a Class B Wetland to Construct a
I
Swimming Pool, 251 Trappers Pass, Bob and Anna Santos
Al-Jaff presented the staff report. I
Watson raised the issue of the level of chlorine in the water and
how it would effect the wetland.
Johnson stated that not having a swimming pool does not constitute II
a hardship.
Kevin Norby stated that a standard has been set in the neighborhood I
with houses that have a reduced setback.
Workman made a motion to approve the variance. Johnson and Watson
I
voted against it. The variance was denied.
Variance to Allow Two Principal Buildings to be Erected on a Single
II
J - Building Lot and a 28 Foot Variance to the Required 30 Foot Front
Yard Setback for the Purpose of Keeping a Summer Cabin. 7431
Dogwood Road, C. W. Freeman I
Al-Jaff updated the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on -this item.
Mr. Freeman stated that the cabin is an existing structure and is
I
grandfathered in. He also stated that the septic system has enough
capacity for both structures.
Workman moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded
by Watson.
Workman inquired why staff had recommended against having two I
principle structures on the same parcel.
II
1
BOA Minutes
October 14, 1991
Page 2
Krauss stated that the applicant might want to sell the property,
or if a different individual owned the property, they might want to
' rent it out.
Johnson moved, seconded by Watson to deny the application. Workman
' voted to approve the variance. The variance was denied with a vote
of 2 to 1.
Approval of Minutes for September 23. 1991
Workman made a correction to the minutes. He had voted to approve
Adeline variance for a front yard setback rather than deny it as
stated in the minutes._ With the correction made, Workman moved,
seconded by Watson to approve the minutes. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
I .
•
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals '
Minutes of August 26, 1991
Page 3
Workman moved approval of the 17 foot variance to allow the 3 decks ,
to remain contingent upon obtaining a building permit and making
any necessary corrections, deck not to be used until final
inspection is granted, no portion of the deck located within the
setback is to be expanded in the future, no water oriented use
accessory buildings to be located in the 75 foot setback area and
also condition upon the applicant agreeing in writing to bear all
responsibility for defending against any action that may be taken
by the DNR to contest the variance. Chmiel seconded the motion.
Workman and Chmiel voted in favor of the motion and Watson was
opposed.
The item will be appealed to the City Council on September 9, 1991.
C. W. FREEMAN FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND SUMMER RESIDENCE TO
BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOTS 8-10 AND A
PORTION OF LOT 7, SUNSET HILL. 7431 DOGWOOD ROAD. ,
Aanenson gave the staff report.
Acting Chair Watson indicated that she had received a letter from
Janet M. Quist in support of the action tonight.
Aanenson indicated that she had received a call from a party that
did not wish to give his name, who indicated that he had signed the
Jessup petition in favor of this request. However, the caller
indicated that he was not in fact in favor of it and claims to have
signed the petition under some duress.
The applicant described his request. He indicated that he
originally had four homes and that the guest house had been on the
site for 43 years. He stated that it was in family ownership and
he was going to retire with his wife. to the new home. He stated
that they needed the old cottage solely for family gatherings. He
indicated that this is not the first guest house on the lake and
that a garage located on the adjacent property had been used in a
guest house in the past, although it no longer was in use. Mr.
Freeman acknowledged that he did sign the building permit prepared
by staff which contained the condition that the guest house either
be removed or made uninhabitable prior to obtaining a certificate
of occupancy. However, he implied that he was forced to sign to
obtain his building permit. He believed that his septic system was
over built and fully capable of accommodating the two units.
Martin Jones, a neighbor, testified that the cabin was there since I
before he moved in the neighborhood in 1950 and he spoke in support
of keeping it. ,
Workman questioned about the precedence setting value if this were
to be approved.
1
It Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Minutes of August 26, 1991
Page 4
1 Krauss indicated that the precedent of allowing two homes on a lot
could potentially cause problems elsewhere.
1 Mayor Chmiel questioned the street right-of-way for Dogwood vis-a-
vis the location of the home. He inquired as to whether or not the
city could put a notice in the chain-of-title that would notify a
new owner that you would be obligated to make the dwelling
uninhabitable.
1 City Attorney Knutson indicated that this was not possible. If a
variance were to be approved, the variance runs with the property
and therefore would not cease to be valid simply because property
1 ownership changed bands. In the future, someone could challenge
the imposition of conditions on the variance and would probably
prevail.
1 The Board decided to table action on the variance request and
directed the City Attorney to develop an ordinance amendment that
would allow for the location of a guest home on a RSF lot. They
1 indicated to the applicant that they would consider such an
ordinance change in future but did not guarantee that it would be
adopted and that Mr. Freeman would be obligated to abide by
whatever decision is taken in the future.
1 Krauss inquired as to how to administer this request since it was
originally our intent not to issue the certificate of occupancy for
1 the new home until the guest house either removed or rendered
uninhabitable.
1 After some discussion it was agreed that the City Attorney would
draft a document to be signed by the applicant which would obligate
him to abide by whatever conditions are imposed in the future.
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
O B.,A DATE: Aug. 26, 19 91
\\I
CIIAHA5EN CC DATE:
CASE #: 91-11 VAR
By: Al-Jaff:v
STAFF REPORT 1
PROPOSAL: Variance to Allow Two Principal Buildings to be Erected
on a Single Building Lot and a 28 Foot Variance to the
Required 30 Foot Front Yard Setback for the Purpose of
Z Keeping a Summer Cabin
Q
V LOCATION: Lots 8, 9 and 10, and a portion of Lot 7, Sunset Hills on
Lake Minnewashta - 7431 Dogwood Road
APPLICANT: C. W. and Barbara Freeman
5808 Crescent Trail
Minneapolis, MN 55436
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: Approximately 102, 000 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF
S - RSF
QE - RR and Dogwood Road
d W - Lake Minnewashta
Q WATER AND SEWER: Not available. '
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site is a riparian lot to Lake
Minnewashta. . It contains a residence -under II
(n construction. The site is also heavily
wooded. '
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Large Lot Residential
i
le .Araira 111°. -: ea/0111U
11.1111°."-N111111111‘' - (
.46101;;Emort 14-ive- ii- 111
ttaimirA ale!as 11/ ,
4-111 tuilE,Aw am. ma I
1111171
LAKE --11
IVIZIP-.
0
rion, M / NNEWASHTA
__
MI, RD \
WAD \\, , PUD-R .
_ _
• -
1111 -71k 1 11;114
.sraor ;dr lb . ;• -
3. . i 411, Allk Wit1111111111111111
• II . - -----
( (' iiinINONN • RR
I
‘, ........04„,
,
.-.)/) WI illahl. lifAeLLNORES
t '. i b,
I alli b 0 7, ..- Lbe.a...h ,, •4,4
r..1 ark. _ DR_IvE_
4i4.1_____•JL.V...-..-, V
,ii- - iii‘‘
111 at_mort
..,,,..,
, .
'NI Illalarj 11 06
4 ii. 111..aumma •
b 4 VIP Sa!al IIMMi
- , .'...-:■_
4=7
C10-
I ---__
--..
--. POND
- ...-1-...,,.._...- •, .t- -..
--"■-----r- ' - - -
— \
PO . Pre .
I
A2
I
-----
1
1 %
I
I ri (P's 82 ND STR E ET
-I
L) a-
I
Freeman Variance 1
August 26, 1991
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-902, Multiple principal buildings on the same lot states
that in any single family detached residential district, not more
than one principal building shall be permitted to be erected on a
single building lot.
BACKGROUND
In May, 1991, the City issued a building permit for a residence to
be located at 7431 Dogwood Road. The site originally contained 3
cabins. Two of those cabins have been demolished. The third
summer cabin remains and a new 4 bedroom residence is being
constructed. Staff approved the building permit for the new
residence with the condition that it be recorded in the chain of
title of the property that the existing structure located on the
easterly portion of Lot 8 (the remaining summer cabin) not be used
for habitation. Water and plumbing shall be disconnected prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
The site is comprised of several underlying lots which have been 1
combined into a single tax parcel. The existing dwelling is
setback only 2 feet from the Dogwood Road right-of-way.
Staff would normally have asked that all pre-existing dwellings be
removed as a condition of obtaining the building permit. However,
on a similar request elsewhere in the community the owner asked
that he be allowed to maintain the dwelling as a storage
building/playhouse. Staff allowed this to occur but stipulated
that all power and utilities be disconnected to ensure that it
would not be used for habitation. We also had a notice placed in
the chain of title indicating that the building was not to be used
as a dwelling. Given this prior experience we decided to offer the
same flexibility to this applicant.
We understand the applicant's desire to offer housing for his
family on vacations and outings. We further note that the current
condition of the site with one new home and one old cottage in
place of three cottages, represents an improvement. However, we
cannot find a rationale to support the request.
On August 5, 1991, the applicant submitted a variance application
requesting to continue the use of the summer cabin.
ANALYSIS
A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
or City Council only if all of the following criteria are met:
•
1
I
Freeman Variance
August 26, 1991
Page 3
a. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue
hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put
to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings,
shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a
majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet
of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed
neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that
blend with these pre-existing standards without departing from
' them meet this criteria.
* Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the subject
' property and discovered that there are a number of
structures that are located within the front yard
setback, except that those structures are accessory
structures consisting of garages and sheds. Allowing a
' summer cabin to remain within the front yard setback will
create a precedent and will depart from the standards set
in that neighborhood. More importantly, allowing two
' dwellings to remain on a single parcel creates a new
precedent of some concern to staff.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is
based are not applicable, generally, to other property within
the same zoning classification.
' * The request, if approved, will create a standard that
deviates from the surrounding property in the same
subdivision.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of
land.
* The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel
' of land.
d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created
' hardship.
* The difficulty or hardship is self=created. The city has
an obligation to ensure that a lot is used in a manner
' consistent with our codes. The new dwelling, which is a
4 bedroom home, meets the criteria.
' e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
I
Freeman Variance i
• August 26, 1991
Page 4
* Granting of this variance will result in setting a
precedent within this neighborhood and introducing new
standards. Furthermore, the existing septic system
cannot accommodate two units and the Building Official
has indicated in his attached memo that a new septic
design be submitted for approval.
f. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to adjacent property or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or, impair property values within the
neighborhood.
* The applicant has indicated in his letter that he is
requesting to use this cabin during a limited time period
during the summer season. However, it is very possible
that a future owner of this residence would rent out the
cabin and congestion could result on Dogwood Road,
especially since this road is a dead end and substandard
in width.
The applicant is requesting a variance to locate two principal
structures (residential units) on a single building lot. This
request violates the Zoning Ordinance requirements of Section 20-
902.
Staff made the applicant aware of the city ordinance at the time
the building permit was requested. We further attempted to give as
much flexibility as possible by not requiring that the dwelling be
removed, only made uninhabitable and that provisions be made to
properly notify all future owners of the property.
The lot has an existing on-site sewage treatment system. At the
time the building permit was issued for the construction of the new
four bedroom dwelling, it was understood that the applicant would
be using the existing on-site sewage treatment system. This system ,
can handle up to 720 gallons of effluent per day. City Code
requires a 4 bedroom dwelling to have a minimum of 600 gallon
capacity. Assuming that the cabin (summer house) is a type III
dwelling unit which is the least restrictive the Code permits, an
additional 180 gallons is required. Based upon the above, for the
two units to be using the same septic system, a mound must be sized
to handle at least 780 gallons per day. '
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the variances
be denied. '
1
I
' Freeman Variance
August 26, 1991
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
' Staff is recommending that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
deny Variance Request #91-11 for reasons defined in the report.
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Building Official dated August 20, 1991.
2. Letter from applicant.
' 3. Petition from neighborhood.
4. Site plan.
5. Copy of special conditions attached to the building permit.
1
i .
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ,
MEMORANDUM '
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ',1,c,,,
DATE: August 20 , 1991
SUBJ: Variance, 91-11 (Freeman)
Background:
A building permit was issued for a new 4 bedroom dwelling using the
existing onsite sewage treatment system. The City has plans for the
existing system. It is a mound, and it would appear that it is sized
to handle 720 gallons of effluent per day. The building permit was
issued with the understanding that the existing dwelling(s) were to
be removed from the septic system.
Analysis : '
Individual Sewage Treatment System Standards, Chapter 7080, which is
part of the chanhassen City Code, contains the requirements for system
sizing. 7080. 0170 states "The minimum daily sewage flow estimated for
any dwelling shall provide for at least two bedrooms . For multiple
residential units , the estimated daily sewage flow shall consist of
the sum of the flows of each individual unit . " Based on this, the
mound at 7431 Dogwood must be sized to handle at least 780 gallons per
day. This estimate is based on the new 4 bedroom dwelling (600
gallons) , and an assumption that the existing dwelling is two bedrooms
or less and is a type III dwelling (180 gallons) . This is the least
restrictive the code permits. Based on this the existing system is
too small . '
Recommendation:
I recommend a new individual sewage treatment system design be '
submitted for both dwellings as a condition of approval for a
variance. Occupancy of the new dwelling will not be permitted with
both dwellings using the current septic system. '
n
tOf PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
IVARIANCE REQUEST
FOR FREEMAN PROPERTY ON SUNSET HILL. LAKE MINNEWASHTA
This property has been in the family for about 50 years. My wife and I have owned the property since
I1962. The property consists of lots 8, 9 and 10 plus 2/3 of lot 7 on the east shore of Lake
Minnewashta. Before this year there were three summer cabins on the property. Two of these cabins
Iwere demolished to build one year around house. The third summer cabin remains. In order to obtain
a building permit we were required to sign a paper guaranteeing that the third house would not be used
for habitation. It is this point for which we are requesting a variance.
IThis property has been a gathering point for our family for more than 40 years. The house in question
has been used as a guest house for that period of time. The house is not winterized and in fact is not
Iworth winterizing. All plumbing is useable only in the summer. We would like to continue to use the
house as a place for our children and our grandchildren to spend a few weeks in the summer. Total
summer usage in the past few years has been no more than three weeks. We do not anticipate that
Ithat will increase.
The plumbing has currently been disconnected as per the building permit request.
I
TITION FOR VARIANCE RE. 1
FREEMAN RESIDENCE - 7431 DOGWOOD ROAD
1
The undersigned neighbors of the C.W.Freeman's at 7431 Dogwood Road.Excelsior.Mn.55331
support their request for a variance to allow them to continue to use their guest house on Lot 8 Sunset f
Hills. It has been used for forty years as a guest house. The house is never to be used for year
around living and never to be rented. It is to be used by members of the family such as children and 1
grandchildren..
ADDRESS
t c to b o g.Laiov0 JCh
7
J iJ / 1
. _ ///��.st /ors aL114 / - 1
/ "Jct. x Soo ,4-O
4 - /MM../ '3 3 -L_7 C> w o va
: , ter. ' . .
�� . '
A .
11 1}41111.1 :1 OS r,A I"MA I I WAUMFM• -
et - AN& __ / 4 e.L��/ ice/ .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D ft ` I I
n
lt_ 8
8 Q ,! 'f 1
'7 V r— s
a it ; p 0
S
�1 , ~ a1
4 1'4 B Z r y
v
is • r y
I
tr. i,
p7 r
0$ o
xa
N.V 1 . / :Et .1.4 r 2
■
I J , �
a \� \ ,
I , � ! � ' \ �`, ' Q
,� \
I b Z b 1 1 • 1 .Q .t
I � , '�
Ia \ 0-C ,„'t , a ,----. , ,..
\ ,s-
•9 \ \. X11, `•,,
1 1.`
1 \
1 11 i 1 •
I 11,41.-.
ig , 1111111111P0 ... \
'6.1 1 V..it
`y
% e
,„9 \
I----- b 'L C- a I i • %
i co , r r r ,
N • t '
o�.
N../ t
a
6" l,' .
13' - • ..
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN i
-°-; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '
10:!4' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
A NOTICE FOR APPLICANTS FOR BUILDING PERMITS
FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX HQ,1E CONSTRUUCTION II 71'~31. D wcc t R
Lot-7 /1 1 D Block II
tense} N i ll ari L- . M;rnr\e u.sas1�,�o,
The following are required by City Ordinance and are a condition of Building
Permit approval:
1. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. II
2. Unless already on the site, at least one tree must be planted on private
property in the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous II
at least 2 1/2" in diameter at the time of installation.
3. Erosion control must be maintained throughout the construction period and I
until new vegetation is established.
4. All public streets must be maintained in a clean condition. #
5. Drainage and grading must be completed in compliance with approved plans.
r. Additional requirements relating to tree preservation, landscaping drainage, I
placement and elevation of the home and related issues may be imposed. These
requirements are conditions of approval as granted by the City Council. It
is your obligation to maintain erosion control, tree preservation, drainage,
I
and condition of public streets during construction of the home.
r
SPECIAL CDNDITIONS: It -0\-\2_,L1 6£ let-0644 in +e, chain oc Tj�-/ .°
II
_ 1D-cf.-Ilea arl }ham ett4 ?of Vine1 0c
11 1 4 • no 1O' u + a 0- n
#
Cj11GII be * 6c..on a-'. prim- to t55-ua.n _ off- cam. C-Q,
Failure to comply with these requirements could result in the issuance of a stop
work order. Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued until all conditions
II
have been complied with. If the conditions cannot be met prior to requesting a
CO due to weather or other circumstances, financial guarantees satisfactory to
the City must be provided prior to release of the CO. The amount of the guaran-
tee will be established by City staff. Financial guarantees for seed/sod and
the tree is $750.00
I have read this notice and fully understand its requirements. I
i
Applicant Signature Date
II
'AV:1
111 tle _ - ") r4i 5 0C —eft
City Staff _ Date
II•
II
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
IAN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF
THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, CONCERNING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS
I
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding the following definition:
Accessory Dwelling: A second dwelling unit on the same lot
as a single family dwelling for use by the household
employees, relatives, or social guests of the occupant of
the main dwelling.
I
Section 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding Section 20-266 to read as follows:
Sec. 20-166. Accessory Dwellings.
The following applies to accessory dwellings:
(1) The floor area of the accessory dwelling may not
exceed fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the
principal dwelling.
(2) The accessory dwelling may not have a separate
driveway curb cut.
(3) The accessory dwelling must have been constructed
at least ten (10) years prior to the construction of the
principal dwelling.
Section 3. Section 20-614 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding subparagraph (2) to read as follows:
' (2) Accessory dwelling.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
1
08/28/91
II
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this II
day of , 1991. 1
ATTEST:
II
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor I
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991. )
I
II
I
I
1
I
I
II
I
1
I
I
I