Loading...
2.1 Variance extension for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. .2, f I ' f • CITY of I , . : - . i ._._ ;::. • CHANEASSEN . „ , • 1 . . . ,,.,..., ... . , . . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administratb' Endorsed MEMORANDUM Modified ' Rejected__.— TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals ort��-� -T� pate Sutrri��ed to G= nssiOR FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I ' pate Sus^it;sd to Council DATE: February 20, 1990 Z.- ,b--- U 1 SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, James Jessup 1 On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved variance request #89-1 for the front, rear and both side yards setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence. II Since then the owner was informed that his property is con- taminated with petroleum products; therefore, the City Building Inspector and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 1 13, 1989. The contamination is for a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operating from the lake. The variance will expire on March 13, 1990 unless the owner starts construction before that date. The applicant expects construction to resume some II time in mid-summer of 1991, The applicant is requesting an extension of the variance 'until one year after the receipt of certification by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stating I that the site is ready to be built upon. The rationale for the year is that it will take time to evaluate if design changes are necessary to prevent contamination from re-entering the site or IIthe structure itself. Staff recommends the extension be granted. While we support the variance extension, it should be made clear that the gas tank was a non-conforming use and it is staff's I position that it should not be replaced. a6; ATTACHMENTS -. ��,y, ,y . f ; 1. Letter from applicant. 2. Staff Report dated March 8, 1.989. 3. City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989. I4. City Council minutes dated February 27, 1989. II 1 1 II January 30, 1990 ' Jo Ann Olsen Sr. Planner City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Variance extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. ' Dear Jo Ann: ' The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension for the variance of the above referenced property. This letter is in response to the conversation you had with Gary Hempel, the City Engineer, concerning the delay in the construction of the house on the referenced property. The delay in the construction is forced because of the ' discovery of an unknown condition that exists on the property. The condition is subsurface contamination of petroleum products. The city building inspector and fire marshall issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The source and total area impacted are not known at this time. It is expected to take some time to determine the source, area involved, a appropriate plan of action, and time to execute the plan. It maybe midsummer of 1991 ' before construction may resume. Therefore, I am asking for an extension of the variance until one year after the receipt of certification by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stating the site is ready to be built upon. The rationale for the year is that it will take time to evaluate if design changes are necessitated to prevent ' contamination from reentering the site or the structure itself. I can be called at 341-6028 during the day if you have any ' questions. Thanks for your prompt handling of this request. Sincerely, ,A15,4:7001112 James F. Jessup 3323 Lake Shore Ct. Chaska, MN 55318 t'..y.1 FEB 0 21999 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 414 /1/1 114 II NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING / 14qt-Zi 2'Pr COUNTY OF CARVER CHASKA, MINNESOTA Application for Rezoning NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, the 20th day of February, 1990 as soon as possible after 8:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1 of the Carver County Courthouse, Chaska, Minnesota, the Carver County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the application of Ron Krueger & Assoc. , Inc. to rezone the following described property for residential cluster development pursuant to Section 8. 11 of Ordinance 32 (Zoning Ordinance. ) 71 . 33 Acres in Lots 5 & 6 of Section 19, Laketown Township. The complete legal description is on file in the Zoning Office and the office of the County Recorder. All persons interested are invited to attend the hearing and be heard on this matter. Written comment may be mailed to: ' Dept. of Planning, Zoning & Environmental Services Box 16 _ Carver County Courthouse Chaska, Mn 55318 Date: 1/25/1990 ' Carver County Planning Commission By: Virginia Harris, Director Dept. of PZ & ES Date to Publish: 1/31/1990 Waconia Patriot - Chaska Herald ' To be billed to Dept. Of Planning & Zoning at the address above i�LZ:G1 V11;) FEB 08 1990 1 CCU OF CHANHASSEN ,i , , CITY' bF 7 I 's:, i s. '-‘1, t *I,,, P.,r I--•-• CHANHASSEN 1 N, ,1!- zi iiir,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 Er_ e_./4-3;-. . MEMORANDUM IITO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals p. Ij.p/i/ FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director Z 4;1 ._____114721,-. IIDATE: March 8, 1989 __3b,.3/i _. _ 1 SUBJ: Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks #89-1 Variance II This application was presented to the Board of Adjustments at their meeting of February 27, 1989. At that time the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment: This item was tabled for two I reasons. First of all, the Board felt that the variances seemed to be excessive for the piece of property and the building that was being proposed. The second reason was to request staff to II look at other variances along .Take Riley Boulevard and provide a summary of what variances have been allowed in that area. In response to the first reason, the applicant has submitted I revised plans for the property. The changes to the requested setback variances are as follows. II Front setback - To be 17 feet at the closest point from the front property line. The driveway itself would be 18} feet long at its shortest point and 21 feet long at the longest point be- tween garage and the edge of the right-of-way. These distances ' are adequate to allow•vehicles to pull off. the right-of-way and park in front of the garage. I Side Setback East Side - The required setback is 10 feet. Previously, the applicant had asked for a 5 foot variance on the east side. The revised plans show the required 10 foot setback Ion the east side. No variance .-would be required on the east edge of the property. Side Setback West Side - The required setback is 10 feet. The II original plan submitted showed a 1 foot setback from the property line to the edge of the deck and a 6 foot setback from the prop- erty line to the edge of the house. After the staff report was I written, the applicant had submitted a revised plan dated February 22, 1989, which showed a 10 foot setback on the west property for the house and a 6 foot setback for the deck. The II II II Board of Adjustments March 8, 1989 Page 2 I latest revised plan dated March 6, 1989, on the west side indica- tes a 5 foot setback from the property for the building as well as the deck. This results in a 5 foot variance to the side yard setback on the west side of the property. Previously, the appli- cant had noted the potential for doing a land trade with the adjacent property owner on the west to align their property line with the existing fence on the west side of the property. If the properties were to agree to move the lot line over to the existing chain link fence, the resulting setback on the west side at the closest point to the building would increase to approxima- tely 7} feet. , Rear Setback - The required setback along Lake Riley is 75 feet from the high water mark. The applicants have revised their building plans to eliminate the porch on the rear of the building which on the previous plan encroached into the 75 foot setback. The latest plan shows the rear of the structure being right on the 75 foot setback and a 10 foot deck extending into the 75 foot setback along the rear of the property. The deck is considered a structure and would require a 10 foot variance to the rear yard setback for its construction. Lot Coverage This lot is approximately 7,500 square feet. The maximum lot coverage in the RSF District is 25%. This translate to 1,875 square feet that can be devoted to lot coverage on the property. Lot coverage includes all impervious surfaces which covers the structure as well as driveways, sidewalks and decks. If the applicant were to meet all setbacks for the lot, the area which could be built on would cover an area of approximately 1,380 square feet. Then you would also need to add in, at a minimum, a driveway to serve the structure, assuming a two car garage, a 30 foot setback and a 16 foot wide drive, we would have another 480 feet added onto that figure. That would bring the total up to 1,860 square feet. This would comply with the maxi- mum coverage requirement of the code. , Lot coverage for the proposed home based on the plan dated March 6, 1989, breaks out as follows. Deck 330 sq. ft. Driveway 320 sq. ft. Sidewalk and front stoop 100 sq. ft. Proposed Building Footprint 1,650 sq. ft. (garage included) Total 2,400 sq. ft. , This total, 2,400 square feet, is approximately 525 square feet larger than the maximum allowable lot coverage for this piece of property. I I 0 IIBoard of Adjustments March 8, 1989 Page 3 In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30 foot front yard setback to allow for a 17 foot setback. They are asking for a side yard setback of 5 feet on the west side from the required 10 feet. They are requesting a variance to the 75 I foot rear yard setback from the lake for a 10 foot encroachment for a deck on the rear of the home. Lastly, they are requesting a lot coverage variance of approximately 525 square feet over ' what is allowed. The second item requested by the Board of Adjustment was a sum- mary of other variances that have been granted along Lake Riley 1 Boulevard. These are summarized below, however, staff would advise the Board of Adjustment that each application is to be considered on its own merits and the unique characteristics that ' may apply to a particular lot or circumstance. Case ' 82-9 Variance 9239 Lake Riley Boulevard In this particular case, the applicant was granted a 5 foot side yard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance. 86-1 Variance 9235 Lake Riley Boulevard In this case, the variance approved for the property was to allow a single family residence to be 50 feet from the southerly ordi- nary high water mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinance high ' water mark. These are the two variances that staff has identified on Lake ' Riley Boulevard in this particular neighborhood. Also, there was another area that people have mentioned, which was a reconstruc- tion on an existing foundation footprint. This particular pro- ' perty does not meet setback requirements but plans were approved under a section of the code which allows for the improvement of an existing structure as long as that footprint is not extended beyond what was there previously. This does not require the t owner to come before the Board of Adjustments for a variance to improve that existing structure.- In order for the Board of Adjustments to grant the variances as requested by the applicant, the Board still needs to make findings that the application satisfies the five criteria. While the applicant's revised plans are an improvement over what they had requested previously, the issue remains, is there a hardship that is not self-imposed, are the variances necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights on this parcel, and third, are the circumstances self-imposed or a result of a unique situation? I I �. . . II Board of Adjustments March 8, 1989 1 Page 4 This is the determination that the Board of Adjustment needs to 1 make in reviewing this particular request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report for BOA Hearing on February 27, 1989. 2. Revised plot plan dated March 6, 1989, showing setbacks as proposed. 3. Revised plot plan showing the proposed structure overlayed on existing improvements on property. 4. Letter from applicant dated February 28, 1989. 5. Letter from adjacent property owner dated February 2, 1989. I 1 1 1 11 c. I TY OF CIA DATE: Feb. 27, 1989 \, • EN CHANHASS C.C. DATE: ICASE NO: 89-1 Variance • Prepared by: Hanson/v# II II STAFF REPORT - i PROPOSAL: • Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side I Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage z Ia V • LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley I - Boulevard a. fctb?i ry Cly 1a-, APPLICANT: ''''` V 7,0 Pt- James & Mary Ellen Jessup ; ::�••, I Q 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard RI:::. ' w_ - - Chanhassen, MN 55317 ..*. �_ II aR_X?I1 __ PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: .17 acres (7,500 + s.f. ) 1 DENSITY: 11 _ ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; residential single family IL - S- RD; Lake Riley r E- RSF; residential single family W- RSF; residential single family W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site slopes to lake 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential II ' I LI ! - ff� , - t? 86 TM $,_yeui.u. , 1. 4 . ' 1 P. 8600 Q J CO - 8700 RSF. . Z I _ R 1 2 8800 • - CPOND cc ,� 8900 LARD R. 18 .i_ ir�� — 1) __ ' air - 9000 i ci _ .• R D 9100 I A2 ' d \ Varies � s2oo, .- LAKE i` ," 9300 �� SF R/LEY I r �� �`� .. saoo . •cwo ' I `�, • •• 1 9500 _ _ mrtigni 11.. . --9600 I \ L ".. g POND -. 9700 1 c -\1-.V `'Ei-AIL . (C. .114i 1 a 4-,:-_.) / I a::,`k D 9800=0 Jo' • / u ,00 Nr 1 Qv 200 ' I t 1 1 r 300 1 I W Jessup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 2 II SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES 1 RSF Existing Existing Proposed Proposed IIDescription Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance Front Setback 30' 20' -10' 20 ' -10' ISide (east) 10' 6.8' - 3.2' 5' - 5' Side (west) 10 ' -2.5' -12.5' 1' - 9 ' IRear 75' 78' + 3' 61' -14' Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9% I Coverage II The applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set- ' back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864. 5. The survey of the property does not include the elevation so the exact location of the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears II to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to encroach into the setback 14 feet. I The side setback (west) is requested to be 1 foot. The existing garage on the property is located 2.- feet off the property. The other side setback (east) is presently 6.8 feet and the proposal I is for this to be 5 feet at the garage and 10 feet along the side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also, the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would 1 help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor- ners of the house would be out of the setback. IIThe front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and this is con- sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard and this II neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car to park in the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck and porch would bring this into compliance .with code require- ments. IThe lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the II deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conformance with this requirement. II II • II -essup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 3 The zoning code provides five findings that the Board of , Adjustments and Appeals must make in order to grant the variance request. These criteria and staff analysis are as follows: A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. * The literal enforcement of this chapter would not preclude , use of the property, however, enforcement of the front set- back would require a setback which is not characteristic of the homes east of this lot on the lake side of Lake Riley Boulevard. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. I * Special conditions are that this lot is narrower and smaller than would be required under the present codes if it were to be created now. The question is can the lot be developed and comply with code requirements, and the answer is yes, the lot could be developed but not with a home of the size that is proposed. , C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. * The property could be developed without the variances although the house would have to have a smaller foot print. The granting of the front yard variance allows some flexi- bility and is in keeping with the lots to the east. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. * The home to be built is a new home and it is difficult to say that non-compliance with the setbacks is not self- imposed. The present zoning was in effect when the owners purchased the property and' there has been no change in requirements. I E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. * The front setback is in character. Some side yard setbacks I may be appropriate but a 90% reduction on the side and 50% on the other indicates the structure is simply to large for the site. This is further noted by the proposed lot I I • • `0:' II -essup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 4 coverage of 34% versus the code requirement of 25%. The encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not something the city has allowed except in unique areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals not approve the variances as proposed based on findings that the request does not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff recommends the Board adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed variances for Variance Request #89-1, James Jessup, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side yard setbacks, rear yard setback and maximum lot cover of the ' ^ity Code based on the following findings: 1. Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac- tical difficulty. 2. The variances are not necessary for the preservation and ' enjoyment of substantial property rights. 1. The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size and design of the proposed structures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated February 20, 1989. 2. Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989 Application. 3. Existing plot plan. 4. Proposed plot plan. I 1 r I (7) II I February 20, 1989 , Board of Adjustment City of Chanhassen ' Chanhassen, MN 5531 RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. I Dear Board: I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, 1 and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the lake. It was platted decades ago therefore is not upto current , standards of lot size. The current situation is that a one story structure exists there now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to 1 remodel and add stories to obtain adequate spacce. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is 1 to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This alternative would require building a structure three stories tall and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall 1 structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The tradeoff for heighth versus width is perferable. CITY OF CHANHA=Et; 1 FEB 21 689 CHANHASSEN P!".MM!NC DEPT. S C: II , The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build 11 structure that would be three stories tall and main floor omprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual IImpact of a tall structure. I find the idea not appealing also. he situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted many decades go. The lot is pie-shaped and not to current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These 11 onditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow e enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other omes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The Nome on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year. he planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, Illhafety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of e current structure and like the idea of a new structure. lI appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and ook forward to starting construction this Spring. Sincerely, Les F. Jessup property owner of f47 Lake Riley Blvd. II 11 11 II II 11 I II II 11 II CITY OF CHANH4SSEN February 21, 1989 ►� ��� � Board of Adjustment FEB �, X089 City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 5531 ENGINEER DEPT. RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. ' Dear Board: The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake , residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide me long term residence. I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the lake. The current situation is that a one story structure exists there now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from , HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too small and narrow by current standards. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This alternative would require building a structure three stories tall and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The tradeoff for height versus width is preferable. The request for variances is consistent with other lake , properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore Acres, was recently granted twenty-five and forty feet variances for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the I/ II lake or side yard. The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual impact of a tall structure. The situation is peculiar to my lot as ' it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie-shaped. It is too narrow and too small in square footage by current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The ' home on the west side was recently remodeled and enlarged. The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current structure and like the idea of a new structure. I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and look forward to starting construction this Spring. Sincerely, James .(. Jessup resident/property owner of / 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. / / / / / / _ . ; ,� Gertiricate :•wig ''''•• - q. /0" �,♦ �, I RAILROAD TIE � / N 69• �/4 c RETAINING WALL qp, E.Y ra ear I ! / `ilf it r.x / M / thilli I I I I I Iti4 I I I I I I I ri I I I I I lila•0 so 0 6 as 6•. s I / I I f. 1 pir. , .: 1._ . 1 tr-- 1 LXISTING •• �K FENCE LINK c Is r� 1 o '� n N ii v► 1 • - ,,; Ex,",.. I A CHAIN LINK� _ , FENCE ��� "oF ACTION OF T1EIE.i_1(423 w ..rf ACCORDING TO THE RECOD PLAT 1.11 I 'sue OF PORE ACRES h0 r, I 1..?. 5.f...• .6. .. . if • Z ZA (015' ' 4 .c.;. G.G seCVIs,.c.t 01/t/ f I / ' I . Ems' s! .41 A O I N e, / ..."■„.................. y I Gq1re .\ I • • . 0 (7) LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION II CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 II (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: '!file AsOujije4e, OWNER: J4nn€5 F. 4 MAtzt aLEJ _LtSSUI IIADDRESS ADDRESS 9247 L A*C RtL67 lc,uD. e4-174-ntdA5561 553/1 I . Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 34/ • f,026 TELEPHONE 4,11„ . 0 3 58 REQUEST: IIZoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan ✓ Zoning Variance Final Plan IIZoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting II Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation II Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME IIPRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION t r 11 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING I : REQUESTED ZONING i USES PROPOSED IISIZE OF PROPERTY / /71/ FT, X 30 Fr X / 6a A 77 f-T. LOCATION 9247 4A-K.� R/LEv &L-ob. SRN WAssCAt- REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Nf414/ Aia rn F Ccn/S7'X'u a.7rn/ II IILEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LOT 42 QF 5.40 40C&S II II (7) (7) City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: I This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and_ plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before II filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. II FILING CERTIFICATION: - II The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances. ' Signed By,.. R Date II _ �� 2 i9�9 p licant e II The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been 11 authorized to make this application for the property herein described. _ 1 Signed By Date 14%4f11- /9g e ner j 1/ Date Application Received o? •oZ '9? I Application Fee Paid 4P,540 ltd,Q 75.00 City Receipt No. A42(92-e, II 3 W -C.k4' ro t D'uA4 "r * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their 11 meeting. 1 I/ - 11111■1" 1....manism• 10111111111111116. •ilia,. . C.1 • • p 4 -,.. ... • k..) 11 . se.• ._ 745.. • . 1 .._ -• IA 0 t•1 I -,: resii.Roao TIE , RETAINING WALL / 04 0 4.4 I Al 69. i - AI I ...0 * 4i +t• v I I - 6 ;94 • :.- b •••• I • ..4 1 , . .. / i I -..,.... ,.., r, I ...." 00 4 4` I I Z-------,. I t 0, z Lb+ i il.• I • \ EXISTING a Igo EXISTING Ci GARAGE 4 F I ) ...) • 12.4 .5 . I I SO grk6-: HOUSE T . .. : I 7::--Z - . EXISTING . • ite 4 Ceere liNK ic: I,. I. IS : ■......... ia r ...... I • ... ' ,-__ t ti:-. --- - 8 IA al•4 re.;• • 4 1 .. ,...- . •... I.,;....; .., .• EXISTING CHAIN LINK obso . FENCE I -,• OSIEMON IT4 MIN..11023W.• ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT or SNORE ACRES " .. V...1. . S ■•• • .' I kw. t-..;,— Icx./. / I _.. ...... . . _ ICO • ... I - I ... ,- s •rs so,pfrei. fl. e t•ie .i • / /■•1 T1 1-1 Li Ifit-c7 iivrotak,v.-4 _ .• I. 1 I ..... I a Cv 01 / "...■„................. .........: ....."---............. fl I ............„..... 4 4 - .%'■ ...................„ ,... --.... ......:,..„...... / I 11111111■6- 16•1011111••• 1600111116. • P � • , '� E* — 'Jo n y W Q / /�t�d omotaiso TIE 9eRETAININ G waLL / � tO,OO` C i Pp • / JOw Ir y �y- / • J• qtY i- / 40* t..ir I 1 ,, / . I 1 . 4t 1 I .......7 • • I sr''�/t. • I 00 ` a i FAy y !/L/ •• CM�NFLMK ..• ; �'j• 6 ENCE i .,\ I e IV $ ' . r' 4 ;: ' � EXISTING I CHAIN ENC IINK \ 1 IF FENCE EST INC Of THE S.E.N 6 ' F SE•?ION 24 T.116 N. 23W, •iC S •Rf ACRES 11ECSR0 /l f �/- 4' • 1 t2 d • . CO .' /{ CT* . . / .9yEy E• I E • I • N , . C / . ........ *"... • / . ....****4 . I February 28, 1989 Mr. Steve Hanson Director of Planning 1 City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN, 55317 RE: Variance Request #89-1 11 Dear Steve: I ask you to place my request first on the agenda for the Board of Adjustment meeting. I would like to have adequate time to present uninterrupted rather than being forced to present as people come strolling in at 7:30 p.m. to attend the City Council meeting. If I can be of assistance to you in writing a staff report recommending the proposed site plan dated February 22, 1989 I would appreciate the opportunity. The issue is not the size of the proposed structure as we both recognize the grandfather clause. The issue is do I build two or three stories plus basement to obtain the same living space that I have proposed. The perpetuation of the existing single car garage location is not what I prefer but provides the only garage under a grandfather clause. I think the elimination of the encroachment and improving side setbacks to a minimum of five feet is in the best interest of the neighborhood. If you wish to walk over the property please call a day in advance to set the time. I work during the day and will need to make special arrangements to be there. Thanks for your time and patience on this matter. Sincerely, 1 James F. Jessup resident/owner 1 1 ' MAR 11989 r Of CHANHASSEN • ' I/ =.ebruary 2, 1989 Mr. Steve Hanson City Planner, City of Chanhassen Re: The proposed improvements to the property at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. I Dear Mr. Hanson: I would like to thank you and the City Engineer for taking , your time to speak with me last Wednesday regarding my next door neighbor 's i-ntentions to remodel his home. As I explained to you in our meeting, we are very much in favor of seeing the property next to ours improved. However, we want to be clear on_ the City ' s planning process and regulations, and to know our property rights. From our discussion, I understand the following points to be how the City of Chanhassen views the situation: I. The City of Chanhassen will allow Mr. Jessup to rebuild on the existing foundation without any special permits as long as it does not further , impose on any of the setback requirements. The City is aware that the existing structures do not comply with the current building code. I/ 2. The maximum building height is 3 stories. (maximum 40 feet overall ) 3. If Mr. Jessup chooses to build on the existing foundation, he might be allowed to attach the house to the garage, but he could not add any living space I/ over the garage. 4. There is a question as to if he could rebuild anything on the existing garage foundation because it already lies on my property. 5. If he does decide to completely destroy the existing I structures and rebuild, the City would allow a variance to the 30 foot required setback from the road, to approximately 20 feet. ( This would line up with the two homes to the East of the property ) 1/ o. The City will not allow any variances to the 75 foot setback from the lake. This includes decks, 3 season porches, and patios in front of a walk out basement. 7. For variances to the 10 foot side setbacks to be , allowed, a hardship ( non self-created as per section 20-58 #4. ) would have to be established. It was your opinion that you knew of no such hardship _ I 71)$q because Mr. Jessup was well aware of the size of the lot and the pertinent city codes when he purchased 11 the property last year. 8. The City 's opinion is that I would have easement rights across the northwest corner of his lot for access to my two driveways. This is because I have owned my property for over eight years and I have used and maintained the corner of his property for access to my property. Also, this condition has existed in this form since the home and garage were built in the early 60 's. ' 9. The City cannot provide jurisdiction as to how he reroutes the rain water runoff , even if he redirects 11 it onto my property, because this is an individual legal question for a judge to decide. 10. The City will inform us in writing when the actual applications and plans have been submitted and when the Board of Adjustments and Appeals will meet to discuss the variances. I understand that the earliest date of this meeting would be February 27th. If I have misunderstood any of the above points, I would appreciate if you would let me know as soon as possible. If I do not hear from you by February 15th, I will assume the above points to be correct. Again, I would like to thank you for your time and information. Si el y, 6.4k1 Donald Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 445-5728 cc Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager 11 11 I I < 4 t/UrI11ICUIti 0 r fii I IJ O n P 0s /' V H 69° id I RALOAO TIE .. RETAINING wAL� J / / ' I Q•O O` � 1p w I 1 F 4 E .c / 1 0 !J N / I ' • pA / 4$ / �O r T: 2 . L : r, •i! •a' i 1 • 1N1''.r1''. EKIST/N O ,•• —E•IST NK 3 '6 - `FENCE n 8 N N •. y il ow / EKISTING CHAIN LINK K�` / FENCE E WEST INE OF THE S r/A r _OF SE TNON 24, T N6 N�,R 2)w, ,S ACCORDING TO THE RE••RO FLAP r iOF,SIQRE ACRES—dl- f / O ifs 'DI N `:' , J�a✓�Sev.. I . � .� t ': .... /0156 -° 3/6/8q . 1 i I-6 II -?‹....................1 / a ...� • Is °J3°O F SE, �t,~I~f ` , EJ 1 N �s.., :, I fil,, 1 _ i v Y •11• �S zj •M� �O�s al t i x 1:W ''1 W Y Ay O / / V o ` or a�, a' / W N \. 10 J N k.. el .. F. •••.1 ".11111141,411, •I •N alliellar- i6j �iQ , -- • ::1; /./41/44) 2 • 11418 LTI h• y P ri1/44 . W ME M ' :,B7i /I . , C 6 - - 9 91 .Y.C,_ -. Y N1„01 AO 000 S \ • J "'-' r uW b A....,14.1 �; s ~a Z il it 1. • •1 . v • •4....•3 4.•.9..1...•.1,•4,111N�'Yt'r1.1.1∎109∎11111111VM MW.M.4,0...i441u 6440-.011+.41...d.•,.`•T?.• 44.4140.4•••'.111'/t.•0,1 44412.1.1.,4.•.fn A..•.1 x. ,•1..., • • ■r .r — MN all ass r — — 1 I IN I N — — NI NM OM Harch 6, 1989 1 Donald W. Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Stephen R. Hanson , Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen Mn. 55317 I Dear Mr. Hanson: This letter is intended to formalize our concerns with regards to the request for variances on the Jessup property at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. We do want to see the property improved, however we would like to insure that the house plans are consistent with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood and that the plans make sense for the lot it will be on. As for the hardship, I do not see that the Jessups have established any hardships that are not self-created. They knew the size of the lot, the city's setback ordinances and the condition of the home before they purchased the property. Also, there is plenty of room to build a fine home within the setback- requirements (approx. 1470 sq. ft. on one level) . Specifically, we are concerned with the following points: 1. The proposed overall size of the house is too big for the lot. The preliminary plans show a 3000 square foot home . with a potential 6 bedrooms placed on a lot having just over 7000 square feet and only 25 feet of shoreline. Because we have still not seen full plans or elevations, if these variances are granted, the actual total square feet could expand even more. I feel the city should demand full plans and elevations be submitted before they consider ruling on any of these variance requests. I/ 2. We feel very strongly that the house should not be built any closer to the lake than the 75 foot setback requirement. This is mainly for environmental concerns. This should definitely include not only 3 season porches, but also decks and patios which could easily be enclosed in the future, thereby obstructing neighbor's views of the lake. 3. We still feel the plans show the house being too close to our property line. It is true that his garage now lies I/ I slightly on our property and it would appear to be an improvement to move it over 6 feet. But as it is now, all their traffic and activities go between their garage and house with the garage acting as a buffer for us. If they incorporate the garage in the house as the plans show, all their traffic would go around the house on our side. Therefore we would want the full 10 foot setback requirement enforced to prevent their activities from 11 spilling over onto our property. 4. The overall height that we saw on a preliminary drawing showed it to be 3 stories high and to be approximately 35 feet over the road. I realize this is within the 40 foot requirement, but it does not fit with the neighborhood when the 2 homes to the east are only one story high. 11 5. We are very concerned with the drainage problems that will be caused by the size and placement of the planned structure. Originally all the rain water flowed through the Jessup property. The Jessups have already piled gravel on the back of their lot enough to re-route the water onto our property. Now if they build this house as planned and totally change the grade thereby blocking the natural water path, all the water must go somewhere else. I believe the city should demand the Jessups submit drainage plans to show how they will handle the water drainage problem. 6. We also think the activities associated with a house of this size do not fit on such a small lot. We are concerned that eventually their activities will end up spilling over on the adjacent properties. Finally, in response to the comments Mr. Jessup stated in the meeting on Feb. 27th, we feel he was greatly exaggerating some of the points. As for what exists now on the property, he was claiming that the shed attached to the garage, the pumphouse, and the deck are now existing permanent structures that were not shown on his plans. The reason these were not shown is because they are not permanent structures. The facts are that the "shed" is a "basket-weave" fence with a few pieces of plastic for a roof, the "deck" is a large step out the front of the house without railings and is simply sitting on a few concrete blocks, and the "pump house" is a "structure" only about three feet square and only one foot above the ground level. He also claimed the driveway to be permanent asphalt when in fact it is only loose gravel, and I am not sure the garage itself would even 11 qualify as a permanent structure. I hope you have time before the next meeting to come out and view the property yourself to verify these facts. As for a precedence being set by other homes in the neighborhood, I don't believe any exist. The new home under 1 • II construction on the point ( I believe Lot #35 ) had many I extenuating circumstances because within the setbacks, there was little or no room left to build. I know this plan was reviewed very closely by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to granting any variances. The small blue house Mr. Jessup mentioned that is currently being remodeled on 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. , is also a different story. This was supposedly built on the existing foundation and was not brought up to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for review. There were no variances needed for what they wanted to do. Because I believe they built beyond the extents of the original foundation and I believe this is unfortunate, this should be handled as a separate issue and should no way be viewed as setting a precedence for the Jessup situation. In conclusion, We would like very much to work with the Jessups to achieve a plan that will be acceptable to all. But as for the requested variances, we feel the only one that would be acceptable is to allow them to go within 20 feet of the road which is similar to the adjacent houses to the east. All the other requested variances, we feel very strongly should not be granted. Thank you very much to your attention to this matter. 11 Sincerely, I Donald W. Sitter 11 11 I/ I I I I I/ • I City Council Members City of Chanhassen February 27, 1989 Dear Council Members: Due to other committments I am not able to attend tonight's meeting. I would, however, like to comment on the proposed building of a home on the lot located at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. My concern is the overbuilding of this lot. It is my understanding that the proposed structure would be over 3300 square feet in total area with a 2 car garage and a large amount of deck in addition to that. I like large homes as much as anyone but the size of this home on the lot that they have proposed it for is unreasonable. I am speaking on this subject with many interests: 1) I am a resident in the neighborhood in question and feel overbuilding of any lot would be a detriment to it; and 2) I own 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. which is also a buildable lot in the neighborhood and located on Lake Riley. While I am all for nice homes coming into the neighborhood, I believe that there should be guidelines established by the city to control the size of building on any given lot. It is indeed unfortunate that the situation should get to the point where neighbors or potential neighbors have to pit themselves against each other to achieve a solution. True, there is a procedure for granting variances and that is needed. However, there should be a ratio of building size to lot size so that there is some firm guidance as to what can be expected by both parties. If there is a guideline as such on the books, then I believe it should be enforced by the city so the neighbors wouldn't have to. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, • Alan H. Dirks I I I I I I March 6, 1989 Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 , To: Board of Adjustments and Appeals This Letter serves to voice our feelings of opposition to I granting variances for front, side, rear setbacks and maximum lot at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is our understanding that the applicants wish to construct a 3 story, 3000-3600 3600 square foot house on this very small lakeshore lot. To grant the variances for this lot will set a precedence for the remaining small lots around the area. What will happen is that the other owners may elect to do the same, thus creating a very close complex of oversized houses that would not be very appealing. This we feel will detract and degrade from the esthetic appearance of the neighborhood as well as the country openness this area has grown to enjoy. 1/ These are reasons we chose to move to where we are. We recommend denial of these variances and will appreciate our concerns being given the fair attention deserved. Please visit the site, observe the neighborhood, and recognize the impact to the neighborhood if the variances are approved. 1 Thank You in advance for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, I ( t Kenneth and Katherine Wolter 341 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 (612)-496-1337 I I 11 I I City CouRci.l Meeting - Fel.�uary 27, 1989 IIsubdivision plat, the actual survey showing that lot split of the lot and it also includes an outlot. That's been reviewed by the staff and it does conform (- with the zoning requirements so staff is recommending the Council approve the IIfinal plat of Eight Acre Woods Second Addition. Grant Johnson: My name is Grant Johnson, 6270 Murray Hill Road. I believe the II packet that you've got is relatively self explanatory. For those of you who were on the Council a year or so ago when the Murray Hill Addition was approved, it was somewhat obvious at the time or we had kind of implied that this was our IIintent eventually and the time has just come now that we can put this together so I'm just willing to answer any questions that anyone may have. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I myself don't have any questions on this. To me it II looks like it's self explanatory. I don't know if anyone else on the Council has any questions. IICouncilman Workman: Steve, can you explain to me meets and bounds? Steve Hanson: It's a legal description. In other words, it's described as far as the bearings and distances rather than being an actual plat where you refer II to it as Lot 1, Block 1. So it's surveyed in as opposed to the normal formal plat that you would see. IICouncilman Workman: Why wouldn't this need a formal plat? Steve Hanson: There's a provision in the Statute as well as in the City Code II that allows you to do it this way for a simple subdivision rather than going IL through the expense of doing a full detailed plat. It's really cost savings for than. II Councilman Workman: I guess then give me one reason why they have to have a plat versus tweets and bounds. What makes the difference? I Steve Hanson: This is basically a lot under special circumstances when you're splitting just one lot into two. If you're making it more than that, you'd go through the full blown subdivision process. II Councilman Workman: So basically you're saying if one line is involved to split it, then you can do it this way? Okay. IICouncilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. IICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat for Eight Acre Woods Second Addition (#89-1 Subdivision) as shown on the plat stamped "Received February 6, 1989". All voted in favor and the motion carried. I ii C\ VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP. LI Steve Hanson: This item was presented to the Board of Adjustments earlier tonight and the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment to allow additional 11 1 4 City Council Meeting c6bruary 27, 1989 I- input so I would suggest that you just continue this item and that you need to take no action. II VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE 1 , :,` FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART U CONVENIENCE STORE, G.P. BAJR INC. . iv'' Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This item was also up before the II Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make II that decision. SET 1989/90 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES. II Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of approximately 5%. Each of the license holders were given notice of this II meeting. Some of the licenses are established under State Statutue and I have asterisked those that are again set by the State. Staff is recommending that the license fees be increased generally by 5%. We rounded in some cases as shown in your report dated February 8th. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that we're adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non-intoxicating j_ license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale non-intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at 1/ $250.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion. Don Ashworth: May I make one quick point? The motion also includes the II intoxicating liquor schedule. The City's schedule there is based on both restaurant and non-restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as about 5% higher than in 1988. II Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get those figures Don? Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had asked for a II comparison of fees with some of our other communities. I was looking for that information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available. Resolution #89-29: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I ^^I`' _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD THAT WAS GRANTED ON :. FEBRUARY 8, 1988 FOR ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH II • ) ' 212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE. Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existing conditional use permit. 1 The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements I 5 I City Council Meetin g Ciirch 13, 1989 l IIResolution #89-34: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve a resolution proclaiming the week of March 12-18, 1989 as Girl Scout . Week in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations. II VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE ��-, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW „pINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP. 1100!'°- Mayor Ctanei.l: We have moved up item number 7 which we held at the Board of Appeals and Adjustments just prior to the Council meeting. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments had reviewed the proposal and because of the many conditions and many things that have happened within the area of the setback requirements that were done previously for other homes, had approved this particular item. Now of course it comes to Council for discussion. I'm not sure whether Mr. Jessup would like to make a presentation. If so, please proceed. Councilman Johnson: Was this passed unanimously? Councilman Boyt: It was. Councilman Johnson: Does any member of the Council have a problem with it? • Councilman Boyt: Yes. James Jessup: I am James Jessup. My wife, Mary Ellen is here with me this evening. The two kids are at home and the goal of our request is to establish a long term residence with the proposed property changes... The action that we're requesting is for you to approve Site Plan dated 3-6-89. I apologize if you looked at the staff report at the number of site plans that have been modified and changed along the way. The fact is we tried to accommodate input from neighbors and staff and do other things to the project. What I've got is an existing structure and this is covered in your handout on page 4. This same drawing... The orange highlighting shows portions of the existing structure or outside of the project. The proposed structure sets inside the existing - structure on 3 of the 4 sides. On the east side of the property the existing setback is 4 1/2 feet. I'm proposing a 10 foot setback. On the street side of the property or the front, there's an existing 16 foot setback. I'm proposing 17. On the west side of the property, the garage actually encroaches onto the neighbor's property which is not a good situation but I'd like to change that. I would propose a 5 foot setback on that side of the property, the west side. So it's...8 1/2 feet. On the back of the property, I propose a 10 foot setback 11 that would have a whole new deck in that setback. Behind that sketch is a rough house plan that I put together that shows the main level of this 2 story home with 3 bedrooms. We have a 2 car garage, kitchen, dining room area and den are I all...pretty standard home. ...3 bedroom home, 2 bathroom. Similar to what you probably. We're trying to build a home here that's similar to what's already existing... I think the colored pictures there that you've got, the front page has that red home there, that's the existing structure and garage. It's not the greatest. That's what's existing there today. If this is approved, that would be gone. It's a tough site and the reason for the setback requirements are the fact that the lot... The minimum frontage across the street side is less than •I 19 c ' `' City Council Meeting - Mil 13, 1989 minimal standards. It's a tough situation. It's an existing situation that I'd like to improve. I'd like to get rid...i'd like to improve the setback...and the Board of Adjustments agrees. As an alternate, not as an alternate but to further talk about the hardship... That's the setback as proposed by the guidelines. Wi.thi.n that area you can see that there's very little space on a main floor to build, after you include your 2 car garage, a stairway to get to the upper level, a deck and a small room for... Councilman Johnson: You're putting a bigger deck on that example than on the t house you're planning. James Jessup: I think they're the same size. What I've got here is a situation that's difficult by design of the lot. It was a pre-existing condition. The previous owner experienced similar frustrations in that property is too close to the street and too close to the east side. The garage encroaches on the west side and the deck sits in the lake area. The situation is, I appreciate your consideration. The precedent for this situation as the staff has reported in the report to you, variance 89-2, a home 250 feet down Lake Riley Blvd.. Here are some pictures on 13, page 13 of your handout, excuse me the fourth page. The bottom home. The home that's tall. That home was granted a 5 foot variance from the property line. It was granted a 33 foot variance on the lake side and the front yard setback also so there's precedence very close by... Just in summary, I'd just like to restress the hardship criterias. I think this meets pretty well and this plan shows what's there, what's proposed. There's just not roam to... I think I've got a pretty reasonable strcuture that's 2,000 square feet on two levels...so I would ask for your approval. Mayor Claniel: I know we have a neighbor here who would also like to address this. Don Sitter: First of all we would definitely like to see this property improve. The house next to us right now is an eyesore. I have no concerns about that at all. We want to make sure that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood and fit on the lot that it's being put on. The City ordinances call for an establishment of a hardship of some sort. I don't believe any hardship has been established. If you look at the site plan, they have approximately 1,470 square feet within setbacks which they can build this plan. I think that's plenty of roam to build a fine home. If they want to go two levels, they've got nearly the 3,000 square foot. Specifically we're concerned about a few things. One is the overall size of the house. What Jim calls a 2 story house, I call a 3 story house. His plans show for a full basement which is a walkout basement and being on the lake, that's nearly road level or whatever so it is literally a very large home. The 3 bedrooms upstairs, if you include the den and playroom and a piece of the rec roam that could be finished off, we could be looking at a 6 bedroom home on a lot of 7,000 square feet and lakeshore of 25 feet. I think the Jessup's are fine people. What if they sell to a family of 6 teenage kids? Where's all that activity going to fit on a lot of that size? As for the precedence being set, the house down the road I think was 40 feet back from the lake which is a 35 foot variance or whatever. The house is approximately 30 feet deep. That means the back of their house is 75 feet from the lake and they're already too close to the road. They literally had no room to build on their lot. As far as the 50 foot wide lot...so as far as the side setbacks, I think there's a considerable difference in that condition and in this condition. We also have a concern with the drainage on the property. Right now you can see 20 11 11 • • City Council Meeting C)-arch 13, 1989 their existing garage, the existing home, all the water runs out... It was brought up at the Board of Adjustment meeting before us that some of the water 111- is coming from our house, running down the driveway and through their property. That's a small problem. The big problem is the entire area north...and I think you can ask them. I know of at least 3 or 4 times in the last few years that they've ended up with 6 inches of water in their house and they had plenty of water damage to show that. He had to do a lot of repairs on his home to fix that. That's no small problem and I see no drainage plans at all whatsoever for this. We're also a little worried about the overall height. The two homes to the east are single story homes. His is up close to 35 feet in the air. I'm not sure that really fits with the rest of the neighborhood. You might ask why I'm opposed to this and it seems kind of strange. They're looking at building a very, very nice home which would help improve our property values and I think that's a good point and like I said, we want to see it improved. We think it's too much improvement. We think the house is just too big for the lot. I'm also very concerned about the encroachment on the lakeside. Because there has been no hardship established here and you're allowing them a 10 foot variance there, you're basically saying the City Ordinance is not good at 75 feet and you're basically changing it to 65 feet. I'm not too sure that's what you really want to do here. I guess if I saw sane hardship or some reason why these variances should be granted I'd say fine but I think they can do very well within the setbacks and I'm pretty sure we're maybe establishing precedence on this one. Not a precedence on the ones that were done down the road. I don't think they Ilcapply to this case. I think it's different. Thank you for your time. Councilman Boyt: I think that the important point here is that there are criteria that are set up by the State to use when we're considering variances. L I_ Variances are not meant to write ordinances. Variances are meant to handle hardship situations that the ordinance could not be written to adjust to because it was in fact a unique hardship. If we're unhappy with our ordinances, we should rewrite them but if we're going to give a variance, we really ought to follow the guidelines the State has set down for us. Now we as a Council are acting on this kind of variance for the first time. Previous Councils have acted on it and they have made decisions. We might be able to make a pretty strong argument that that does not bind us to making similar variances but once we make it, we've then created a precedence for this particular body and anyone who wants to come in and say I want to extend my house within 65 feet of the lake and we say to that person you do not have a hardship, they can say to us, and neither did this situation. So I think from that standpoint, Mr. Jessup's presentation is a good one. He makes a lot of very good points. The one about the existing footprint of the hone I think is an excellent point and should allow us to make some reasonable adjustments. So I can understand the need to allow some variances but I think we have to be very careful that we don't allow any that haven't already been approved for this particular location. I would prefer to see us have a building, house, that does not cane closer than the 68 feet the current residence comes. I think anytime we can improve and as Mr. Jessup's second plan, his modifications from 2 weeks ago is certainly an improvement over the first plan and in sane regards we might be able to make an argument that it's an improvement over the existing variances on the current house. But where it's not an improvement I think that we can't afford to pass that. Not when he can not show a hardship and he can't because he can develop this property without variances so I think we should consider this very carefully. This is not simply a matter of looking at this particular instance but it's establishing our willingness to grant anyone the opportunity to build 21 IICity Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 within 65 feet of the lake. fl Mayor Chmiel: I guess there's been several thoughts on that portion. Steve, will you read the specific conditions that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals have indicated? Steve Hanson: Yes, the Board of Adjustments in their recommendation for approval had...as follows. First was that the drainage in the area be reviewed by the City Engineer to come up with a viable means for handling that between the neighbors specifically. The second condition was that the deck remain a deck and no porch or any type of enclosure be allowed either up on that top level or on the walkout level below. The third condition was that the plans for the building be reviewed•by staff as part of the building permit process to insure that what they're asking for in the building permit complies with what the Board of Adjustment approves. Then the fourth condition was to specifically make a plan that's contained in your packet and dated March 6th as the official plan...Board of Adjustments specifying what those setbacks were. That was the extent of the conditions placed on there. Mayor C mi.el: As we looked further into this, and in a particular case on a variance that was granted previously just in an adjacent, in addition to the one that Mr. Jessup has indicated, in this particular case the applicant was granted a 5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance as well. That was at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.. At 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. there was also a single family residence be 50 feet from the southerly ordinary high water mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinary high water mark. Unfortunately, as I see it, there has been an awful lot of variances within that specific area granted on all those homes. True it was granted by the previous Council. I don't think in my good conscience and probably from the...aspect, can we deny those variances with all the other variances that have already been granted. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond to that particular part of it. What you were granting a variance can not be limited to one lake in town. When you grant this variance, you in effect grant a variance for anybody that can I/ come in and make the argument that they have a similar situation and you have taken hardship out of our criteria. Don Sitter: I'd also like to make a point on those two instances. Both of � those lots were reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and they determined that they were literally unbuildable if there weren't variances granted because they had no roam left to build. So if that's the same conditions that this is, I don't see that as being a precedence for this issue. I think that they were considered very carefully and if you don't allow some variances in those, you were deeming that property unbuildable and therefore taking away the value of the land altogether and I think that's totally different and I don't picture this.. . Councilman Johnson: I'm going to agree with Bill a little bit here. When you I look at a variance that was granted in 1982 which is a long time, 7 years ago, and you look at another one is 1986 which was 2 Councils ago and the variances that were granted with the last Council have had primarily totally unbuildable lots. There was down on Lake Riley that I don't think is on this list that we granted where I think he got down to several hundred square feet of buildable property by the time all the variances. He was on a peninsula and the 75 feet I 22 I/ {�;M • r i. City Council Meeting (Arch 13, 1989 (61 1117 came in from 3 sides on the guy and it was an improvement. I do not think that there is in any variance, every variance has to stand totally on it's own. I've been staunch on variances for years, or for 2 years. That there has to be a hardship shown. I don't want to put, I agree with Bill, 68 feet was the existing setback there. I would say if we can go to 68 feet there. I think he's trying to put more house into here than there has to be. I think that it can fit with the neighborhood. I'd like to know if he tried to get the neighboring property where his fence is that appears to be his yard, whether he tried to obtain that from his neighbor and whether his neighbor is willing to negotiate some of that which would change that setback because there is no house right next door on the one side. I think the neighbor is actually here. James Jessup: What was the question? Councilman Johnson: Have you negotiated for the purchase of part of your land where his fence is on your land up to his existing fence so his fence that designates his yard is actually your yard. James Jessup: We talked about that. If you'll also notice from the plans, my driveway cuts across the corner of his property so we were talking about swapping back and forth there or some easements or whatever. But in the area where the fence is, we're only talking about a foot or 2 on my property so it's no... Councilman Johnson: Well it does change the variance a little bit but I think that needs to continue to be worked on. I'm against expanding a bad situation ` and going any closer to a lake. While I don't buy the argument that if we do this somebody else someplace else, each variance has to stand completely on it's own. If we do this, tomorrow his next door neighbor could come in and ask the same variance and we could turn it down. It'd be tough. It doesn's seem reasonable that way but we would have to justify this variance and for sane particular reason on this lot does he need that variance to put that deck on there? In my opinion is no. There is no hardship. If you can justify in your 11 mind that there's a hardship that he has to have that deck. That he has to have 2,000 square feet of home plus a full basement underneath it and a double car garage, the double car garage is required, I think that there's just overbuilding for this lot. That's the long and the short of it. I'm going to vote against it. Mayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to cane up to the mic? Willard Johnson: I'd like to defend the first two issues of the variances up the street. I was on the Board in both cases. We could have deemed than both 11 unbuildable if we would have wished to and then does the City want to purchase the property? That comes into effect and I feel this one here is the same situation. If you want to maybe you can negotiate with the gentleman to chop off the 10 foot deck. I'm always for negotiating if that's the proper procedure and maybe he's willing to take the deck off because I don't see nothing wrong with this piece of property either. I felt the same on the two in the past. The gentleman says we could, they were unbuildable, you've got either two choices. Either make than unbuildable and the City buy than or that's all I have to say. I 23 City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 • 1 Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Willard you said that the previous two I!! were unbuildable. This is not any way unbuildable. Willard Johnson: No, I didn't say. The gentleman here says the Board says they were unbuildable. Councilman Boyt: You're saying the previous two were not unbuildable? Willard Johnson: Be says the previous two were unbuildable. I guess what I'm getting at, he's trying to say that the Board says the previous two are unbuildable. We could have just told than no, we won't grant no variance and if the City didn't want to grant a variance, he couldn't build. Councilman Boyt: That makes than unbuidable doesn't it? , Willard Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so they were unbuildable? I Willard Johnson: Well you could put something on it. Councilman Boyt: 200 square feet or something? Willard Johnson: Let me word it this way. There isn't a lot in this whole city you can't design to fit a house, even if it's 90 feet tall and 10 foot wide. That's what I'm getting at. II/ Councilman Boyt: Alright, but what we were saying earlier was those two lots, as you recall, would have required an extremely small house? Willard Johpson: Yes. I Councilman Boyt: So we gave a variance to make them more buildable. This allows a house of 1,300 square feet. Are you saying that makes it unbuildable? Willard Johnson: I guess I compare it to some of the planned developments we've got in this city and it's up in my neighborhood too. You've got, let's use x number of dollars, $250,000.00 homes in there from lot line to lot line so I guess how do you compare apples to organes? I guess he wants to put a decent sized home on there and I feel that maybe you can chop off the deck if that's what the Council would wish to bring it within the 75 foot of the lake. The rest I have no problems with. The 5 foot on the west side. The 10 foot on the east side and the street. I don't have no problem with that. If you wish to chop 10 feet off the deck, I have no problem with that either. I'm not sticking up for the applicant but I'm just saying, it's a hard thing to do. We've got three areas in the City, Carver Beach is one, Red Cedar Point is one and Lake Riley is another one. We've just got lots that you've got to work out individually. I Councilman Boyt: I agree with you where a lot is unbuildable and the City has to look at purchasing the lot or granting the variance but that's not the case here. 24 11 r City Council Meeting Qrch 13, 1989 0 IWillard Johnson: No, I realize that but what kind of home can you put on it? I'm looking from the standpoint, a building standpoint too. Councilman Boyt: A 1,200 square foot home. Willard Johnson: That sounds dumb. You might as well put up a good one in 11 order to put it up. Not that I'm sticking up for the applicant. Make a decent home instead of a house that, he's going to put a garage in the bottom part so you're losing quite a bit of hone space. We require a 2 car garage. I don't IIknow if it's a good arguing point. I hope I made my point clear. Councilman Workman: I'm not going to argue with the expertise of Willard. To me it all looks like a little bit of a hardship case with these lots. Going all II the way back to when they were designed. To me it looks as though this is kind of, this is cleaning up this lot a little bit and improving it. A bad situation into maybe not as bad a situation. I'm going to take the advice of the Board of IIAppeals and approve this. Councilman Boyt: Show me the hardship. Not that you have to but show me the IIhardship. Councilman Workman: You're right, I don't have to. But we've got a situation if you just look at this map right here alone and we've got problems with the ill oranges. I don't see where, we can keep it the way it is and we've got all sorts of problems along both sides. I don't see where taking this and bringing it in, maybe up, bringing it closer to the lake. I'm looking at before and after situations here. It's like the southern area of Chanhassen. It's not I'k going to turn into a wheat field down there no matter how hard we wish. This situation, all along this lakeshore isn't going to improve because we wish it to. So to me, this is a situation, they're coming in and spending an awful lot Iof money to improve a situation. Councilman Boyt: Well, why don't we just have them build it up to the lake 11 then? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's silly. Let me ask Mr. Jessup, would you be willing IIto remove your deck fran that particular building? James Jessup: I would ask if you would be willing to buy a lake house without a deck? IMayor Qmiel: I might. II James Jessup: The neighbors on one side of me have...and the neighbors on the other side have a three season porch and they have a door in... Decks and a lake home go together. Look at the pictures that I provided you. You'll see many decks on Lake Riley. Mayor C oriel: Let me ask another question. Bill's concern is the setback 68 IL feet to be in conformance with the other homes. Would you be willing to cut 3 feet off that deck? James Jessup: It makes it very difficult to put a table on top of that deck. IIWe have a round table. 25 i City Council Meeting — Mil 13, 1989 II Mayor Chmiel: What's the total length of that deck? Is the total 10 feet? James Jessup: It's 10 foot width but...would be less than 7. By the time you get a railing you have a 6 1/2 foot wide deck to put a nice round table...how do you get around it? Mayor Qmiel: I've got one. My deck is exactly that and we have a round table on it. I Don Ashworth: If I may ask the question. The 3 feet wouldn't necessarily have to come off the deck. It would be maybe adjusting deck and house. The important point is that it's back 68 feet. It would appear as though your plan might be able to be adjusted to allow the back portion to be increased one dimension slightly more to lose the 3 feet the other way. Councilman Johnson: To follow on that Don, how big is your garage? I don't see any dimensions on here? James Jessup: It's 23 1/2 by... Councilman Johnson: Saying that the existing pump house is the existing setback where I think they went to the wall of the house rather than the pump house before but that's 16 foot. Sliding the house forward to meet the existing 16 foot setback, going to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus the 23 1/2, losing a foot and a half there. Sliding the entire house to the right to give you a little more because if you lost a little bit there. Then we're to a 9 1/2 foot deck. See what I'd say is go to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus a 23 1/2 x 23 1/2. I realize that that's getting small but that's what I've got actually is a 22 x 22 and my wife's big Chevy fits in there with my little Horizon. I think that 11 would also give you a little bit more on your west side if you went a little narrower omthe garage. If there's anything you can cheat on and not mess up your living space, it's your garage. You just have to walk a little tigher when you bang your doors into each other's cars. Councilman Workman: How much are we going to gain by doing this? I Councilman Johnson: We'll gain 2 1/2 feet if we cut a foot and a half off the garage and slide it towards the street a foot to get to the 16 foot mark. That gives us 2 1/2 feet so take a half foot off his deck, he's added a 68 foot. He's got a 9 1/2 foot deck. So he has not exceeded the previous deck footprint of the previous variance that was on there. I think it's workable. It's not that big of a deal. I Councilman Boyt: That would certainly be acceptable from my standpoint because we're not exceeding any variances... I Councilman Johnson: In the existing condition. Councilman Boyt: In the existing condition. I Mary Ellen Jessup: How does that affect then what we discussed during the Ell Board of Adjustments? One of the addendums or whatever where you mentioned that we had to use that exact footprint as the exhibit for approval? For this permit 26 1 11 IICity Council Meeting rch 13, 1989 11 to construct? How does that affect it? ' Councilman Johnson: We're modifying it. Mayor Chmiel: It's being modified right now. The Council has the final consent for proceeding with what you have. As it looks right now, you're looking at a 2 to 2 vote where it's not going to go anywhere so I think discuss this with your husband real quickly to see whether or not you can go in that particular way. Mary Ellen Jessup: What I needed to know is, are we going to have to cane back for an appeal? Mayor Chmiel: No. It could be resolved right now and see it proceed. Councilman Johnson: While it seems like we're really measuring the straws to an inch degree when we talk about a half foot there, but it does seem to crawl on ' you. A half foot this time. A foot, just to give than some time to get some patter going here. James Jessup: If we would establish the guidelines as being a 16 foot setback from the road and 68 fran the lake and let us maneuver around inside the house and let us make the tradeoff for whether shrink the garage 2 feet or whether we shrink something else a little bit, is that agreeable? Councilman Johnson: Fine. Mayor Chmiel: And that's a part of what the conditions basically are. James Jessup: Very good. Thank you. Councilman Boyt: I would move approval as just mentioned that we retain the 68 foot setback from the lake. The 16 foot setback fran the Lake Riley Blvd.. 10 feet from the property to the east. And is it 7 feet? ' Councilman Johnson: It's 5 unless he gets the property next door. Then it goes to 7. Councilman Boyt: Are you going to work out the property next door? Don Sitter: We'll certainly work together. I guess I would like to ask one ' more consideration of the Council here. Your suggestion of him shrinking the garage and pulling in another couple feet off of my property will help my attitude a lot. Could we make that instead of the 5 foot setback from his 1 property line, 7 or 8 foot setback and have that... Councilman Boyt: I don't think his garage isn't over on that side of the house. Don Sitter: No. What I'm saying is shrink the garage so he can pull it farther off of my property. I(-- Councilman Boyt: No, I don't think that was how that was going to work Don. Councilman Johnson: I was doing that too Bill. That was in my suggestion too is make the garage narrower and then they could move further away from the 5 27 r dity Council Meeting - Mill 13, 1989 II foot setback. The existing condition is that he's 2 1/2 feet into your property. This would be an improvement over being 2 1/2 feet into your property by 7 1/2 feet but this fence remains into your property quite a bit when it gets down to the lake. Don Sitter: But as I mentioned in the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, right now that garage is on our property but it acts as a buffer between their activities and ours. It's like a little well or fence. By removing that, garage, all the activities are coming around our side of the property. That's why I'm standing on that setback a little bit. Councilman Boyt: I would make the motion that it's either 5 feet or 7 feet. I I'm open. To follow my logic, we're staying in the existing footprint and to me that's critical. So the'situation with the garage I think is maybe something you can work out in your property swap, if you're going to swap property but from my standpoint of protecting our ordinances, I think we don't want to exceed the existing building footprint and 68 feet from the lake is part of that. Councilman Johnson: Previously, the closest sideyard setbacks was 6.8 feet. On 1 the previous house. If you don't count the garage. Now his closest sideyard setback is going to be 5 feet. Councilman Boyt: Well I hate to get into a situation where we've got a negotiations that's open ended. Councilman Johnson: So what do you want the west side property setback in your motion? That's what we're down to. Mayor Chmiel: That presently is 5 feet right? Councilman Boyt: Presently it says it's 5 feet. We all agree 5 feet? Mayor ChmieZ: Yes, 5 feet. Councilman Boyt: 5 1/2? I would make my motion that it's 10 feet on the west side and 5.5 feet on the east side. 68 feet from the lake and 16 feet from take Riley Blvd.. If you can work out something better between you, marvelous but I think from the City's standpoint we've got to require that. I Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. I James Jessup: I'd rather you keep it 10 feet from the east side. Councilman Johnson: We did. 1 James Jessup: You said west. • Councilman Boyt: Which side do you want what on Willard? Willard Johnson: 10 foot from the east side. Councilman Boyt: Okay, and what do we do on the west side? 28 r r 1 City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 Willard Johnson:. 5.5. The reasons I come up... Councilman , Councilman Boyt moved y nc lman Johnson seconded to approve the variances to the front, side and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard with the following setbacks: 68 feet from the lake, 16 feet from Lake Riley Boulevard, 10 feet from the east side of the property and 5.5 feet from the west side of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 11 PUBLIC HEARING: A. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVE74ENT PROJECT NO. 87-17 FOR THE NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT. B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT. iMayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Gary Warren: I don't know that it needs much of an introduction. I didn't see, our facsimile machine at the last minute today a letter came in from Mericor the owners of the Town Square retail center. They're in support of the project. Just had a concern about the assessment issue as far as the 23 parking units that were added to the building which I guess from an assessment standpoint, this is not an assessment hearing but the discussion and the request in the letter is appropriate that City staff meet with than to explain the rationale and that. Basically I'll speak for Fred Hoisington but in general terms, they were added to the assessment roll for two purposes. One, they have drainage that flows to this new parking lot area for which we will be accommodating their flow. Secondly, because they have a more intense use than what was originally planned and that intense use ends up using more parking stalls and has impacts on the Riveria...they were assessed the parking and 23 units so we have gone through and applied the logic basically from that standpoint. But we certainly will follow up as requested in the letter and talk with Mr. Winkle from Mericor and review that with him. There will be the option at the assessment for getting further into that when the project is complete. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this public hearing? Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Brad Johnson. 7425 Frontier Trail representing the Heritage Park Apartments and the professional building. We've gone on record in your, I believe the staff also outlines the fact that we do not feel nor do our experts, whoever they are, they're not here I/ tonight, that there's additional need for the water line that's furnishing the water to the hydrant. That's an additional cost to the project of $50,000.00. We've been requested by the City to upgrade our building from originally, I(_- especially the apartment building, from the original unsprinkled building to a totally sprinkled building with additional costs to us of $100,000.00 thus far. In checking with all those that know and we're willing to listen but we have not heard anybody feel that the additional fire hydrants on the south side of the apartment building is anything but overkill in the case of fire protection. In ' 29