Loading...
6b. Board of Adjustments front yard variance 7431 Dogwood I ,I ' 6.6 CITYOF • , CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ". 1/ _ IR" IMEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager r 10-' 0.--1 / 1 FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I ►o-I 4-q i .. . THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director CI IDATE: October 28, 1991 SUBJ: Appeal the Decision of the Board of Adjustments and I Appeals for a Variance to Allow Two Principal Buildings on a Single Building Lot and a 28 Foot Front Yard Setback, 7431 Dogwood Road, C. W. Freeman 1 The applicant is requesting a variance to allow two principal structures to be erected on a single building lot (one single family residence and one summer cabin) . The summer cabin is an Iexisting structure that only has a 2 foot front yard setback. On August 26, 1991, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed I a variance application to allow two principal buildings (a single family residence and a summer cabin) to be erected on a single building lot. 1 The Board tabled action on this application and requested that staff work with the City Attorney to investigate developing an ordinance that would allow two principle structures to be erected 1 on a single building lot. On October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance I and recommended that the city council deny this amendment. They believed that the ordinance was ill-considered and could create problems in the future on this site and other parcels. I The City Council will be reviewing the ordinance amendment at the same time the variance application will be reviewed. I On October 8, 1991, the city issued a certificate of occupancy that is valid for one month only, for the applicant to occupy the newly constructed single family residence on the subject property. When I the applicant meets all the requirements of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council, if any, then a permanent Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. I n t v 1 el PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ' Freeman Appeal October 28, 1991 Page 2 Staff must point out that the capacity of the septic system on this site does not meet building code requirements and the City does not have the authority to grant a variance to the building code requirements. Therefore, should the City Council approve this variance, it should be with the condition that the septic system ' capacity be enlarged to meet building code requirements. Staff maintains its position by recommending denial of this variance application. ATTACHMENTS 1. Board of Adjustment minutes dated October 14, 1991. 2 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 2 , 1991. 3 . Memo and staff report dated October 8 , 1991 and August 26, 1991. 1 I . 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 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 Attorney and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. ' 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 motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A 51 Foot Setback Variance from a Class B Wetland to Construct a Swimming Pool_, 251 Trappers Pass, Bob and Anna Santos Al-Jaff presented the staff report. 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 a hardship. Kevin Norby stated that a standard has been set in the neighborhood ' with houses that have a reduced setback. Workman made a motion to approve the variance. Johnson and Watson voted against it. The variance was denied. 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 Keeping a Summer Cabin, 7431 Dogwood Road, C. W. Freeman Al-Jaff updated the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on this item. Mr. Freeman stated that the cabin is an existing structure and is 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 principle structures on the same parcel. .1 IBOA Minutes October 14, 1991 Page 2 1 Krauss stated that the applicant might want to sell the property, or if a different individual owned the property, they might want to IIrent it out. Johnson moved, seconded by Watson to deny the application. Workman I voted to approve the variance. The variance was denied with a vote of 2 to 1. Approval of Minutes for September 23, 1991 1 Workman made a correction to the minutes. He had voted to approve Adeline variance for a front yard setback rather than deny it as 1 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 I I I • 1 I I I I I I 1 Planni rc Commission Meeting II' Oct cal_ 2 , 199a - Page 12 1 4 . The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of the proposed sign . A sr _.tc sign permit is required . II3 . The applicant shall provide a revised parking plan consistent with staff 's recommendation . 4 . The applicant will provide detailed drawings of the proposed lighting1 rp1a n The applicant shall submit a revised grading and utility plan 1 including size , type and elevation of storm sewer and obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit . 6 . Provide: 8-612 concrete curb and gutter around parking lots and 1 driveway Increase parking lot pavement to standards outlined in the r •r,' t and incorporate city 's typical industrial/commercial driveway II d- + ai I . Add catch basins in driveway access to catch runoff before Hr.,:i ni. n: into Park Place . Fill existing ditch along Park Place with storm seer extensions . II 7 . Tr -' - J 1 ha bales around catch basins until the bituminuu: is net - 116. d . j - :' all disturbed areas 1 c' . Incta.11 fire hydrant north of the driveway on Park Place . I 1Cr Pro : i _ approval for Site Plan #89 -9 Rome Office Buildin C, , 11 . The applicant shall include windows and glazed block as set forth in 1 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 . II Emmin_:1 This goes to the City Council on October 26th . You can follow i� there . PUBLIC HEARING: II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS. Public Present: II Name Address Willard Johnson Chairman , Board of Adjustments and Appeals I Paul_ F'rails= presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings called thc, public hearing to order . I Willard Johnson : I guess I was discussing something with Paul . I 'm the Chairmara of the Board . I wasn 't there that night . I was out of town so I guess I 'vc got a feeling I can find a million holes in the darn thing . 1 .�� PlJnring Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 13 Erhalt : In what , the ordinance? Willard 3ol- nson: In this proposed . I was just telling Paul , I 'm going to come up net 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 1958 . I 've got a motorhome that 's 1964 so I qualify in that 10 year bracket . I know farmers around here that have ' ' 'particular case is in Watertown . Watertown township where th: ' ^vo got a chicken house made into a home and a grainery and 7 guess thsre ^s a number of farmers in the city . I 'm just looking for loopholes . I had a 40 acre parcel here last year . I was on the other side of thc table at the County . In order to qualify for selling the land , we ha� a couple that wanted to buy 5 acres off the property and then the other 35 they 'd take Contract for Deed . Well we had to dismantle the existing home or there so they could have it and if they had defaulted , well the deEl fell through but if they had defaulted on 35 acres I would have been N� oet ef a hon.a . Sc I guess there the County said no , you can 't do it and =~ I had 4C. aireF, . I guess this is a little different situation but I just fee] noy . hc I can bring my motorhome and I can request it . Paul says it 's of an iffy situation but I 'm just throwing loopholes at you . Or N� if / .-c ovn a piece of property and you 've got an old shed sitting back th' re for years and say gee , I 'd like my kids that are coming from out of ct ,:t - to spend tH- summer there . I 'm totally against it . I don 't konw ho: r/e ccrrred*s feel on the Board but I wasn 't there that night and I haven 't discussed it with them but I 'm heartedly against it . 8utzli ' Whv are you against it? What 's wrong with having a little bunk hnus-'� Johmec'n : I 've been on this board a couple of years and , Iona N� yezrs . rro!oaLil / longer than most of you people have been in the city , and I 've c E�fl sc' mach stuff we 've fought through the city . We 've tried to keep a fail ] ' d� cnt standard . Maybe we failed someplace in our variances but N� in grE.ntinJ c variance but this is leaving this wide open . B' te ` � - Wi ` open for what? What 's wrong with it? What 's going to happen that ': L'ad? 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 . °= BPtz] i : No because I live in a PUD . I can 't put anything on it but that 's another story . N� Willard Johnson : Yeah , but say you 're living in , I hope some of you people understand this . You 're living in not a planned deuelopment . One of the older parts . We have trouble with Lake Riley . We have trouble with Red N� Cedn- Point 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 mane r� . Batzli : I think of my in-Jaws place up in Annandale and everybody up and dour thr lake has a little old cabin from one of the resorts that went out of business . I don 't see anything wrong with it . • Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 14 Willard iohnc r : You haven 't been on this Board as long as I have and you . haven 't fount the conditions . They ' ll haunt you . 1 Batzli = 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 happens that 's bad? Do people actually , they convert chicken coups and that 's bail and we 're trying to avoid that? Willard Johnson: . . . I can show you two farms right now where they 've got multiple dwellings on it . Batzli : Is there something inherently bad with multiple dwellings? Is that what 's had? Ell �:c Well one of the things they were talking about here is like peopi� will sty,; t renting it out and things like that . Patzli : ('lrio:ht , no we 've got a carriage house in Minneapolis that 's bein rent - - F 7 - that bad? I 'm trying to find out what 's bad about having re r;t,- 1 , . + your land . r - r tJr ' 1 "s . . Eatzl i , I think you 're raising a point , which is one of thy. ;=c ;. t thy '_ I hove with this ordinance . This ordinance isn 't dealing with Eli those things that you 're talking about . It 's dealing with one 1y E-te '_ ' - T . I 'm just trying to find out what 's wrong with it in El l : : ' : Why do we say one house per lot? We have all kinds of good 1 reas-,n- for saying that . Patel : : 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 fine . Krauss : Yeah , I could too if all ro erties were p p i re regulated equitably . Emmingxs : This is getting real loose . Willard , we want to give you a chance to make your comments on this and I think we 've got them . Is there anything you 'd like to add to that? Willard Johnson: I 'll just give you a for instance . . . .there 's about , the 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 a cci, cf a gun to clean it up . We had the Sheriff up there all the time . 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 with this city . I was in the township growing up and I guess I 'm trying to got my point across that you 're going to cause a problem . 1 I ' Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 15 Emmincx : Thank you . Now we 've got public hearing open and there 's nobody else here . 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. 1 Erhart : I think there 's two issues here . One is the issue of using an ordinance to be directed 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 guess it 's almost 6 years I 've been out here , I 've seen us attempt to do that . The second 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 people to have accessory dwellings , then we should make it a well thought through ordinance and let 's determine what the bad things and the good things and horror stories are because I could certainly envision , I have a farm Willard and I can certainly envision . I thought it 'd be pretty neat a couple time= to have a guest house when family comes over and someplace ' outside the house . In fact I just visited one in Eden Prairie this week where the; had a guest house . I don 't know what the problems are and if we want to take that on as an ordinance , then let 's take that on as an ordinance but this to me I think is terrible that we 're looking at one little place and then we 're creating around that particular site . Emrninry-s : Without considering the range of problems . Erhart : 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 . Ernmi nge • Ladd . Conras' - I agree . ' Emminae : You 're saving your comments again . Conrad : No , no . I think that 's real valid . This is not acceptable and 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 IF October 2 , 1991 - Page 16 Conrad : Yeah , let 's ask him . I Emmings : Briar: , how do you feel about it? I Batzli : I agree with Tim . Emmings : Jeff? I 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 dwelling: . 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 seell where this person wants to do this . Emmings : What these people want to do this property , given their I 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 seems 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 hous that the)' 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 might be a reasonable goal for this family on this property . And I agree with Tim . We either look at it in general . I think the horror or the danger here is I thought about having , liking to have a second structure on my lot . I 've got a lakeshore lot . I 'm 250 fee 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 wit 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 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 got 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 w:nt 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 I Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 17 ordinance , city ordinances , to say you 're bending them a little bit to get a decent home if they do away with the cabin . • Emo/lngs : On Minnetonka they 're tearing down relatively new homes to build bigger , newer homes . I just don 't think the financial , I think the N� marketplace will take care of that stuff . Farmakes : I think that 's something though that 's something valid to look at when somebody 's considering that . Emmings : And that clearly didn 't happen here . Erhart : Well then the real question is , does anybody want us to look to making an ordinance for accessory dwellings? Emmings : Mc . The first issue is right here . Does someona` want to make a N� motion on this? Erhrrt : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the N� Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing accessory dwellings as written in the stiff repo/ t ' N� BaLzli : Second . EmmlnQs : Any dioeussion? N� Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that th? 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 accescoly dwellings . • N� Erhe ` ! ' How many requests have we had for these kinds of things? How often we gct these requests? Does anybody even ask? @� Krause : Well , see they 're illegal in Chanhassen so when we find out about them we make them come in for some building . N� Erhart : Most people what? They start building and then we catch them? Krauss : Yes . N� Erhart : How often? Krauss : Well no . You know I went through this in Minnetonka where we were N� 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 . m� EmmlnOs : Well now you can do that here . That 's not illegal in Chanhassen . Krause : Yes it is . Planning Commission Meeting It October 2 , 1991 - Page 18 II Erhart : Mother-in-law apartments are not legal? Emminea . AE long as you have the same , as long as you don 't have a II separate entrance . Krauss: And a separate kitchen . II Emmings : And separate utilities . Kraus : 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 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 yoe ' ] l find some in your neighborhood . But these were built without permits normally . A lot of them . Most of them . Well it had to be becaus, we wouldn 't authorize a permit and you find that you have basement dwelling: without egress windows and no smoke alarms and no fire breaks and things like that . Now Minnetonka is an aging community at this point and we ha() e 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 meve from their homes . One of the ways you can make a home more 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 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 II hone had to be a few years old before you could apply for this and it was done aa a c .>nditional use permit so it was open for public review . Emmi g: : !et 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 area as far as accessory structures are concerned or more broadly? I Erhart : Yeah , I would think if we 're going to do this , you go RR . Emminqs, : But just looking at the single family for a minute , why would yo' 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 in the single family area? We have never allowed that . Why would we even want to bring it up? Erhart : If there was a frequent desire to do that . I Emmings : Well we 've never seen one . Erhart : Well no . That 's not what I 'm hearing . We haven 't seen one II because it 's illegal here . It wouldn 't come to us . Krauss : We haven 't seen very many situations that they 're not legal that you have 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 Oct cbc r 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 we have to 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 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? El on: Yes . I think so . 11 Faint , e: : 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 existen,:c i hat you basically would have to tear down to utilize the rest of ' the property _ It may be an issue where that 's not desireable . Emmings : You could see making exceptions . What if somebody had a piece of property with a real old log cabin that had been there forever and now they want to come in and build a house but they want to keep the log cabin . Krause : But it 's not habitable . IEmmings . That 's right . You don 't care as long as it doesn 't have electric ] ty or sewer . Aanenson: Exactly . It can 't become a rental property or something . Krause NON the situations that Jeff is referring to , the Board has been ' very flevib1e in working with people who are trying to use grandfathered in non-conforming structures on lake cabins on Lake Riley . In fact we changed 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 going 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 , be 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 II Ernmi nos : Ladd . Conrad: No . I Emmings : Annette . Ellson : No way . I Emmings : Brian . II Batzli : It should go somewhere way down the list . Emmings : Okay , Jeff . I FarmakeE : Somewhere down the list . Emnning: : Okay , and I 'd say no . Why don 't you run that straw vote by the I City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to -:n.' time on it . Then we ' ll go from there . I Will d ?ohnsen : Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres . Erhart - That was no gentleman . That was me . I Willard Johnson: . . .when we were granting variances to the southern part of th _ city there for building . . .we pushed them to one side of the lot . Erhart : Not anymore . It used to be that way . Wi11::rd Johnson : We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot becausI Eomc di you 're going to develop and can 't afford to keep the property . W- 11 this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sells off t ! 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 people . I 've seen so much . Thank you . Emmings : Yeah , thank you . II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. IIPaul Krauss presented the staff report . Ellson: I have a question . What 's an over story tree? I Krauss : It 's a deciduous tree with a crown on it . Ellson: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top story of the II house or something . Kraus: : Hopefully it will be . I Erhart : Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping . Emmir,os : Yeah . What did we call those trees in our landscape ordinance? I II .1 CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals 1 FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I 1 DATE: October 8, 1991 SUBJ: Variance to Allow Two Principal Buildings on a Single Building Lot 1 On August 26, 1991, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed ' a variance application to allow two principal buildings (a single family residence and a summer cabin) to be erected on a single building lot. ' The Board tabled action on this application and requested that staff work with the City Attorney to develop an ordinance that would allow two principle structures to be erected on a single 1 building lot (Attachment 2) . On October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance ' and recommended that the City Council deny this amendment. The City Council will be reviewing the ordinance amendment in the ' near future. On October 4, 1991, the city issued a certificate of occupancy that is valid for one month only for the applicant to occupy the newly 1 constructed single family residence on the subject property. When the applicant meets all of the requirements of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council, if any, then a permanent ' Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Staff maintains its position by recommending denial of this variance application. ' ATTACHMENTS ' i. Staff report and minutes dated August 26, 1991. 2 . Proposed zoning ordinance amendment. 1 1 ti.4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ITY O F BOA DATE: Aug. 26, 1991 • 1 CHANHASSEN CC DATE: CASE #: 91-11 VAR By: A1-Jaff:v STAFF .REPORT I Al PROPOSAL: Variance to Allow Two Principal Buildings to be Erected on a Single Building Lot and a 28 Foot Variance to the II Required 30 Foot Front Yard Setback for the Purpose of Keeping a Summer Cabin Q 1 VLOCATION: 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 Q 5808 Crescent Trail Minneapolis, MN 55436 ,1 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: Approximately 102,000 square feet 1 DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF S - RSF QE - RR and Dogwood Road Q W - Lake Minnewashta [, WATER AND SEWER: Not available. 1 Fin PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site is a riparian lot to Lake , Minnewashta. . It contains a residence -under construction. The site is also heavily wooded. s1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Large Lot Residential 1 OP QiCiiiErt :Zap it a iii Mill AI, * LAKE . . . 51:. UV 0 1 ‘c F M / N N E W A S H T A 1 RD _•AD PUD—R - - 0i, IR , . hallk -1101.1„ , . LAKE ' v ifii 4 'srJOE '1 .) (17 I liPalLrirlIAllg-4**•mg;"7011111111ilall 1 ■ RR 4/), YAPLE SHORES�- DRIVE _� \ \ rah,� � 1 - °pv, �` \` . Lo�kt nr) bor \ DRIVE / tea,!, _ low wow �1 �� .o Pre 0 0--' a VOX lalati Fr : a kispr.0 \,,, ,..... IIIIIIIII Wit IF '''4*.,,,!116:4 A . . . . . --- ..' _ ___ 1 4#1 1 BOND :o I ` HTGHWA PO � I 1 A2 I \1",t 1i ? El STREET I I d Freeman Variance , August 26, 1991 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 11 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 I 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: IFreeman 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 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. I Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the variances be denied. i 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. I I I I I 11 1 I I 1 I CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM I TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ,) DATE: August 20 , 1991 1 SUBJ: Variance, 91-11 (Freeman) I 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 : I 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 11 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. 11 �s �4u PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 I I VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FREEMAN PROPERTY ON SUNSET HILL. LAKE MINNEWASHTA 1 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. This 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 I worth 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. 1 1 1 . _TITION FOR VARIANCE RE. 1 FREEMAN RESIDENCE - 7431 DOGWOOD ROAD I 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 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 grandchildren.. ADDRESS I 41166 M °9-i74:11--- 7c log .a v6 )(/ , ,. ��r 7_5"..) o / , I •/7 . .,�J�. WAVE _ #' 1L, . _ . /J-re--,t 1 95bo 4-6 . , ,�/ ! -3 7-1'7._ 7 -1 ,742 6-6om O C» j ,?j. bx1 .�-- 7 I .7°�- -,-a�.--J x . d"(c-�..e 1 '.-Lc P,P �.�5 " c� A., cep , lit.� / 74/// .i-fp,- --L.C_ee I 1 I I I I I I I Id ' V1 u _ u 0 ? .v i 4 , r, e \—� 9 �% r -1.-.---•—•—t.INa + ,J A., v1/ .'Z O i w t Q Q -x v fl s - — s v.1 - 41',LSZ r F + , , I U .� ti � LI) al 0 CO Q _ D , m 00 CO CO 6— a' ' I• v. Ns ,max o r...%11 t 11' .9 F..\ 1 . 1.3 ,c:, ...1 ./ ,, .n� 1 'ij i <-1 ,rV 1 1 �/ �a rc-1 / ut V \ l 1 i /;1 a� 1 ■ ' tkr.. I v� ' \ O lit 1 t a' . -1 1 1 �' \ �, . I ` \ �1 •• `- \1 'r x+14 .M .= • 1 b Z 6 tf v �\ I \ K /\ \ \ \.\ „ _______,.,\ .Z1 l 6 _A___,,, - . _z \ r� Ir -41,11, llitik‘,_ ,,,, I _ 11 NI . Q ■ a � .� ■ t : o _ \— - t- tt v 04 , -- 1--- -- - t7 'Lc-cr ` 1 I . N • 1 ' • ou. 7, 1 a td • 0'u 1 1 �- 08 1 CO 6 I. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 NOTICE FOR APPLICANTS FOR BUILDING PERMITS FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX HCNIE CONSTRUCTION I Address 773 I Dc-3--v}G`cX1 Lot7,fi7y it Block i II f>„L4\7-e,I ')-}$1 1 c\ M I V1Y��UJL VT G\ 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 II property in the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous 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. I 5. Drainage and grading must be completed in compliance with approved plans. Additional requirements relating to tree preservation, Iandscaping drainage, II 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, II and condition of public streets during construction of the home. SPECIAL ODNDITIONS: I-c- e L be- ceLpr L€) in t1,,E• C.12. t in oi- I i -1-I II i) , A, k ..x1 zti: c l `J-i ckdL e L1`cdec ' 1 iA,\ , C. IA- y C.•{-k-1ni GA- IGjY\c c,,t1 be, i5�=�i� \- prim- to c55-ucu -)cf_ of cam. C-O. 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. 1 N \ ) /I/-`l , Applicant Signature Date II • 1. \ `� � ___- yV .— t `11 City Staff ----------- Date II 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. l 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 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. ,' Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes of August 26, 1991 Page 4 Krauss indicated that the precedent of allowing two homes on a lot could potentially cause problems elsewhere. 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. 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 ownership changed hands. In the future, someone could challenge the imposition of conditions on the variance and would probably prevail. 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 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. ' Krauss inquired as to how to administer this request since it was originally our intent not to issue the certificate of occupancy for the new home until the guest house either removed or rendered uninhabitable. 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 I 1 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Oct 8 ,91 11 :29 No .005 P .02 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thomas I.(aiuipk ll ((12)452-5000 RI,L'rt N.Knutson t✓'aa(612)451-555(1 ThomtsNI. Scutt (iry(,.I uch, )at»cs R.Walton Lll""{ "`'"`)` October 7, 1991 BY FAX AND MAIL Ms. Sharmin Al--Jaff Chanhassen City Hall it 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Freeman Variance Request ;1 Dear Sharmin: The Board of Adjustments directed me to draft language that it would allow the Freemans to occupy their new house without removing the plumbing from the existing house pending the Board's and Council 's decisions on the variance and ordinance amendment. I suggest that a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued which provides: 1 If the City denies the variance to allow two houses on one lot, this certificate of occupancy shall expire thirty (30) days thereafter unless: (1) we disconnect the plumbing from the existing house on our lot, or ' (2) the City amends its zoning ordinance to allow two homes on one lot and we are given permission by the City to ' have two houses on our lot. The Freemans should be required to sign the certificate of 1 occupancy consenting to its terms. Very truly .yours, 1 C PBELL KSNUTSON, SCOTT CHS, P.A. 1 Y: _ - -roger N. Knutson ~ RNK:srn 1 1 Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 ■ OCT 3 ; 199*i 1 JOHN oley CITY OE- realty inc. REALTORS 80 SOUTH INDIAN ROCKS ROAD BELLEAIR BLUFFS, FLORIDA 34640 (813).586-1061 I October 28, 1991 I Sharmin Al-Jaff '' Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re : Variance petition of C.W. and Barbara Freeman ' 7431 Dogwood Road We have lived next door to subject property at 7411 Dogwood ' Road for some 36 years . The existing use of the guest house has never been objectionable and I cannot see where it would be in the future to us as neighbors, or to the Sunset Hills subdivision. My views on this are both from the standpoint of a neighboring property owner and also from the experience of sitting in on ' many such hearings as a member for eight years of the Edina Planning Commission. Sing rely yolir ' r7ohn 'T' Foley 031 j I MEMBER OF MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE REALTOR' i