4 Variance 8028 Dakota AvenueCITY OF
PC DATE: 7/7/99
CCDATE: 7/26/99
CASE #: 99-9 VAR
By: Kirchoff:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for a five foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the
construction of an open porch addition.
8028 Dakota Avenue
(Lot 15, Block 1, Chanhassen Estates)
Don & Joyce White
8028 Dakota Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
934-2755
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
RSF, Single Family Residential
Approximately 12,000 sq: ft./.27 acres
N/A
N:
S:
E:
W:
RSF, Dakota Ave. and Single Family Home
RSF, Single Family Home
RSF, Cheyenne Trail and Single Family Home
RSF, Single Family Homes
Available to the site
A single family home with an attached garage exists on the
site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
?
White Variance
July 26, 1999
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 7, 1999 for this item. The vote was
4 to 2 to approve the variance. The motion failed. Two of the commissioners could not
justify approving this variance request based upon aesthetics only. It was mentioned at the
meeting that staff research an amendment to allow porches to encroach into a required
setback. Staff informed the commission that such an amendment was reviewed and denied
in July 1997. The ordinance amendment will be revisited on July 21, 1999 when the
Planning Commission reviews an ordinance amendment to allow porches to encroach 10
feet into required front yard setback. Since the results of the meeting cannot be included in
this update, staff will give a verbal update of the discussion and any decision made at the
July 26th City Council meeting.
The applicant is appealing the decision.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-615 (5) (a) states that in single family residential districts the minimum front yard
setback is 30 feet (Attach. 2).
Section 20-908 (5) a allows open porches to encroach 3 feet into a required setback (Attach. 3).
BACKGROUND
This site is located within the Chanhassen Estates subdivision. The subject site is "rectangular
shaped" and the house is located closer to the west side of the site. The existing home is six feet
from the west property line, 31.5 feet from the north property line, 27 feet from the east property
line, and 65 feet from the south property line. Since this property is fronted on two sides with
public right-of-way, it has two front yards and two side yards with no rear yard.
8028 Dakota Avenue
White Variance
July 26, 1999
Page 3
The lot is substandard based on the RSF district regulations with only 85 feet of width and
approximately 12,000 square feet of lot area. District regulations require 90 feet of width and
15,000 square feet of lot area. Section 20-73 (a) permits the development of substandard lots
without a variance provided 75 percent of the required minimums are met.
The applicant proposes to construct an eight foot deep wrap-around porch addition with a one
foot eave on the north side and a four foot porch with a one foot eave on the east side of an
existing home. Since porches can encroach three feet into a required setback, the applicant could
build a 4.5 foot deep porch on the north side only of the property and still be within the setback
requirements. (Note: The home does not maintain the required 30 foot front yard setback on the
east, therefore, any encroachments are not permitted.)
Staff concurs with the applicant that a porch is a community builder and will enhance the
appearance of the home and the neighborhood. While staff would like to recommend approval of
the variance because of the potential benefits, for consistency sake, we cannot recommend
approval of the variance request.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a five foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setbacks for the
construction of an open porch on the north and east elevations of the home. This proposed
addition extends eight feet into the required 30 foot front yard setback on the north and five feet
on the east. Since the zoning ordinance does not permit any encroachments (including eaves)
into setbacks that have received variances, the setback is measured from the edge of the porch
eave.
The home maintains the required front (north) setback and encroaches into the required front
(east) setback. The majority of the homes in the City are placed at the 30 foot front yard setback.
The fact the home was placed at the minimum setback does not warrant relief from the
ordinance. A hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. A
reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet.
A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed,
arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, a
reasonable use is a single family home. A reasonable use exists on the site. The inability to
construct an open porch within the required setback does not constitute a hardship.
Had the property been located within the PUD district located west of this subdivision, a variance
would not be necessary to the build the porch addition. The minimum front yard setback in the
Hidden Valley development is 25 feet and porches may encroach three feet in that required front
yard setback.
The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, therefore, staff does not recommend approval.
White Variance
July 26, 1999
Page 4
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
ao
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that 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 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to
allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in
this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. A single family home and
attached garage exist on the property.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
in the RSF zoning district.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of this request is to construct a porch. The outcome of this change
will increase the value of the parcel.
The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The hardship is self-created. The applicant has the opportunity to construct a
porch addition on the north elevation that maintains the required setback.
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 is located.
Finding: The variance would permit a structure that could improve the appearance of the
neighborhood and potentially create an enhanced sense of community.
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 increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
White Variance
July 26, 1999
Page 5
Finding: The variation will enable a structure to maintain a front yard setback that is
significantly less than what would be found in other properties in the RSF zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission denies the variance #99-9 for a 5 foot variance from the 30 front yard
setbacks for the construction of an addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report and
the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct an addition within the required
setbacks."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application and Letter
2. Section 20-615, RSF District
3. Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
4. Site Plan and Elevations
5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
6. Appeal Letter
7. Minutes from the July 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
\\c fs I \vol2\plan\ck\boa\white 99-9 vat.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
MAY 1999
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
,PPLICANT:' ~-~-~. OL~ ~ ~'OQ(~--
DDRESS:
'ELEPHONE (Day time)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
__ Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
X. Escro.,w~r Filing Fees/Attorney 0o,.st*:
¢$50 GUPISPRNACNAR/W Ar/Metes
~:~ounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
'* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~'~ [~'-~! i) ~".~ T" ~0 ~ 'q ~-- \ I~ ~ ~..~ '.~O
This application must be ~mpletea in full and be ~pewd~en or clearly printed and ~ ~ a~mpanied b~ all i~o~ation
and plans required by applicable C~ Ordinance provisions. Before filing this appli~ion, you s~uld. ~er wEh the
Planning Depadment to determine the spec~ic ordinance and pm~dural requireme~ ~plic~le to ~ur ~plication.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible fo/' complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
! will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of matedal and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have subm~ed are true and correct to the best
~3f m.y knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
Date
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Received on
Date
Fee Paid ~2:~7~"~ ' ~1~
Receipt No.
· The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be avaliable on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malled to the applicant's address.
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 1999
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Note: 8028 Dakota Avenue, Chanhassen, is bounded by Dakota Avenue on the North
(front) side, and Cheyenne Avenue on the East side.
We request a variance for the addition of a wrap-around, open, front porch, with the
porch eves projecting into the 30 foot setback of the front and side yards by a distance of
eight (8) feet. The front porch deck will be approximately 8 feet wide and the side deck
will be approximately four (4) feet wide. The porch eves will be 22 feet from the property
line on the North and East sides.
JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE
We have lived at this address for twenty years, and we hope to retire here.
This porch will add to the character of our home, and, (especially) because it is on a
corner lot, this porch will also add to the character of the neighborhood.
To quote from the Reader's Digest book Decks, Patios, and Porches, "Many citieS have
come to view porches as community builders and now encourage homeowners to add
them..."
A neighbor who added a similar porch constantly receives compliments on the
appearance of his home.
Dakota and Cheyenne Avenues are only 28 feet wide, and with setback requirements of
30 feet, front yards are larger than most neighboring developments.
Many homes in neighboring developments, and some nearby homes, are set back 25 feet
from the property line. With the 3 foot allowable encroachment, open front porches on
these homes could be built 22 feet back without a variance.
Many of our neighbors could add a front porch without a variance because their houses
are set back from the garage.
Because we cannot build a front porch of any practical width/depth without a variance,
we respectfully request the Planning Commission to grant this variance.
Don & Joyce White
8028 Dakota Avenue,
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
(612) 934-2755
ZONING
(2) Storage building.
(3) Swimming pool.
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses.
§ 20-615
The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12,
11-12-96)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots,
the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has
been excluded from consideration.
(1)
The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac
"bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90)
feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually
(2)
1211
Supp. No. 9
§ 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
illustrated below.
Lot~ Wh.re Frontag. I~
Measured At 8,tbaok LIn~
L.
(3)
The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots
is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by
private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building
setback line.
Neck / Flag Iota
FroJ Lot Line.
~ ~ I ~ _
100/Lot Width _~ ! ! I , I
~'~ -.-a t I
. ¶t---.-.---.~
~ I I I
,.. _ L._._I_ _j
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)
percent.
(5) ,~e setbacks are as follows:
For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
Supp. No. 9 1212
ZONING § 20-632
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as ~'ollows:
a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the
public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to
be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated
as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the
point nearest the front lot line where the lot ach/eves a one-hundred-foot
minimum width.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90;
Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95)
Editor's note~Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to
accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend-
ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included
as amending § 20-615(7)b.
See. 20-616. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District:
(1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV.
(2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres.
(Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90)
Secs. 20-617--20-630. Reserved.
ARTICLE XIH. '[1l-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-631. Intent.
The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential
development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District:
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) Two-family dwellings.
Supp. No. 9 1213
ZONING § 20-908
increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required
for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations.
The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measurements
shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question, subject
to the following qualifications:
(1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be.open and unobstructed.
(2) Ayard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provisions
of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for another
building.
(3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard
setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a comer lot; provided,
however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks.
(4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets.
Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street.
~The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances granted from a
required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments):
a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line,
cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance
not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not
exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings
may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing
shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies,
_open porches and chimneys may proiect a distance not exceeding three (3) feet;
unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and
shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be
permitted by conditional use permit.
b. The above-named features may project into any required yard adjoining an
interior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above.
c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence on
February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location
provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a
ten-foot minimum front yard.
d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the following are permitted
in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory structures,
toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balconies,
breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one-story bay
windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet.
Supp. No. 10 1233
PROPOSAL:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, '1999 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
Request for a Front Yard
Setback Variance
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Don and Joyce White
8028 Dakota Avenue
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicants, Don and Joyce White, are requesting a variance to the 30 foot front yard setback
for the construction of an open porch on property zoned RSF and located at 8028 Dakota Avenue.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project,
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project.
make a recommendation to the City Council.
The commission will then
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Vil(ager on June 24, 1999.
S..mooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5:~60®
:1SWEDBERG
CHEYENNE AVENUE
~IHASSEN, MN 55317
MARY ANN WALLIN
8035 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAVID TOOHEY
8049 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
--RT TOENJES
CHEYENNE AVENUE
~IHASSEN, MN 55317
MIKE KRAUS
8037 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STEVE KRAPEK
8051 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
3 BAGLEY
CHEYENNE AVENUE
IHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES PINKERTON
8039 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CRAIG & KATHRYN HUMASON
8025 CHEYENNE SPUR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
IANAEL & ANNE PEDERSON
CHEYENNE AVENUE
IHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL JOHNSON
8041 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CURRENT RESIDENT
8010 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
AEL FARRELL
CHEYENNE AVENUE
!HASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT HERICKS
8042 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL C ODELL
8012 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 553'17
'~RD DORFNER
3HEYENNE AVENUE
!HASSEN, MN 55317
KEITH & TRACEY ANDERSON
8043CHEYENNEAVENUE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL D. PUNT
8014 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
.~ STUMPFL
CHEYENNE AVENUE
IHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD COTTRELL
8044 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
CHARLES HUNTSBERRY
8016 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
:~GE THOMAS
CHEYENNE AVENUE
IHASSEN, MN 55317
STEVEN G. WEIHRAUCH
8045 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BUD WALKER
8018 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
.~EWARD
CHEYENNE AVENUE
IHASSEN, MN 55317
TIMOTHY & JOLENE VICCHIOLLO
8046 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CLARK E CUMMINGS
8019 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
~AD FISKNESS
CHEYENNEAVENUE
IHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT OSTLUND
8047 CHEYENNE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
SUE HOLMQUIST
8020 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
Use template for 5:!.60®
STEVEN PETERSON
8021 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RAYMOND JEZIERSKI
8013 DAKOTA CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAVID KAWLEWSKI
8033 ERIE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOMAS & ANNE CARDLE
8022 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RONALD OLSON
8015 DAKOTA CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL BRINDISI
8035 ERIE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STEPHEN WIGG
8023 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHARLES H, ANGELO
8017 DAKOTA CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARK LAASER
8037 ERIE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
VINCENT J. BECKEL
8024 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DOYLE KIRKEBY
8033 DAKOTA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GERALD CARSON
8039 ERIE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EUGENE GAGNER
8025 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
AMY & GERALD KVANT
8036 DAKOTA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROGER SCHULTZ
8041 ERIE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RONALD J PILGRIM
8026 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KENT BORGERSON
8037 DAKOTA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOEY J TOWNSEND
8043 ERIE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DONALD WHITE Ill
8028 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DANIEL HELD
8038 DAKOTA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT V. BOTTEN
8045 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RAYMOND KNIGHT
8007 DAKOTA CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CARLOS CADAVID
8039 DAKOTA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARK PAHL
8056 ERIE AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
LEE JENSEN
8009 DAKOTA CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STANLEY WENDLAND
8040 DAKOTA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WALTER SCHOLLMANN
8011 DAKOTA CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MIKE NIEMEYER
8101 DAKOTA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
To:
From:
City Council
City of Chanhassen
Joyce & Don White
8028 Dakota Avenue
Chanhassen, 55317
RECEIVED
JUL 1 3 1999
CITY OF CH^NH^SSEN
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Ruling on Case # 99-9
VAR.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On July 7, 1999, our request for a variance to build an open front
porch was denied.
Four of the six members of the commission voted to grant our
variance. Comments from these four members, as best as we
remember:
"This is wonderful.., we need to do more to encourage
owners of older homes to improve their property."
"I've seen this porch (a neighbor's porch used as an example)
and it is beautiful."
"An excellent presentation..."
"Staff should be instructed to revise the variance
requirements to allow homeowners to make improvements
such as this."
Two members voted against granting the variance. Their
reasoning seemed to be that "if we allow this variance, where do
we draw the line?"
Page 1 of 4
After the meeting, we were informed that the staff of the city
planning department is currently exploring alternatives to
variances in order to allow construction of open front porches.
have no further details.
We
At least 9 (nine) of our immediate neighbors have expressed not
only support for our proposed porch, but also disbelief that the
variance was not granted.
We respectfully ask the city council to reconsider this matter, and
to decide in favor of community improvement.
Thank you,
Don and Joyce White
Addendum:
Following is the text of our presentation to the Planning
Commission:
My name is Don White and this is my wife doyce. We have lived at
our home at 8028 Dakota Ave. in Chanhassen for 20 years.
We have read the rules for granting variances for open porches,
and we agree that we don't meet all of the requirements. We feel
that improving the appearance and utility o four home, and also
improving the community, should be more important than
disallowing one house to have an open porch five feet closer to the
street. We hope that you will agree.
Page 2 of 4
We have some pictures to show you. Three of the photos are of our
home, and three are of a neighbor's home. Please judge for
yourselves which home is more attractive or inviting.
Not building a front porch will probably not technically be an
"undue hardship "for us, although the idea of building a porch
has made us feel that we have been living without one for too long.
While our immediate neighbors also have a 30foot setback
requirement, the neighboring development, with even more
expensive homes, has a 25foot setback and the houses can be 5
feet closer to the street. In addition, the streets are wider there, so
houses have less front yard than we would have with a front porch.
We are asking for an additional 5feet beyond the 3feet that open
porches are allowed to protrude into the setback. With the
additional five feet, we can build an open pOrch that is
approximately 8feet deep. Without the variance, I think that my
rocking chair would fall off of the porch.
I don't know if the value of our property will increase with this
addition. It is not our intent to increase the value of our home any
further, and raise our taxes, by adding a front porch.
The staff report suggests that we could buiM a porch on the south
elevation. Even though the house is on a corner, the south
elevation is our back yard, and we have a patio and a rose garden
behind the house. I like to think of the back yard as a private
space, and the front yard as the public entry to my home. A front
porch serves different functions from a back porch, and I would
like to suggest that the only place for a front porch is on the front
of our home: on the north side.
The staff report does agree "that a porch is a community builder
and will enhance the appearance of the home and the
Page 3 of 4
neighborhood." I could not agree more, and I think that this is
what our request is about.
This photo shows the entrance to our home today. When neighbors
stop by, we sit in the swing or on the concrete stoop. What we
would like, is to offer them a roof.., and a chair to sit in. We
think that it will make a big difference to our home and the
neighborhood. If you agree, please don't vote to deny the variance
just because it makes our house different or "inconsistent, "please
vote to improve the community.
The staff report does say that they "would like to recommend
approval of the variance," but they are recommending against it
"for consistency sake." We are hoping that you can see beyond
the consistency issue.
In summary, even though we were aware of the variance rules, we
chose to invest our money, our time, and our emotions in your
judgement. Please vote in favor of this variance.
Thank you.
Page 4 of 4
From:
Don & Joyce White
8028 Dakota Ave.
Chanhassen, Mn., 55317
(612) 934-2755
CiTY OF C'HANHASSEN
RECE¢,iED
;JUL 20 1999
To:
Mayor Nancy Mancino & Council members Mark Engel, Linda Jansen, Steve
Labatt, and Mark Senn
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On Monday evening, July 26, 1999, City Council will be asked to consider our appeal of
the Planning Commission ruling on variance case #99-9. We are asking for an additional
5 feet beyond the 3 feet that open porches are allowed to protrude into the setback. Our
letter of July 12, requesting this appeal, explains the reasons for our request and the
details of our proposed porch.
The purpose of this letter is to invite you to visit our neighborhood before the July 26
meeting. You will see that our home is on the corner of Dakota and Cheyenne Avenues
just south of Highway 5. Despite our lot being considered "substandard" by 1999
guidelines, we have more open yard than most of our neighbors. We have been residents
at this address for 20 years, and we would like to retire in Chanhassen.
If you can find additional time, please drive around our neighborhood and Hidden Valley
subdivision to the west of us. You will see that all of the houses are not the same, and
many are closer to the street than our home.
The home at 8124 Dakota Lane has a front porch addition that we photographed for our
presentation to the Planning Commission. Our proposed addition would be similar to this
porch. It would be built only as an open porch, with no intention of being enclosed in the
future.
Many of our neighbors, and one member of the Planning Commission, have encouraged
us to continue this request by appealing the Commission ruling to City Council. Please
read our letter of appeal, visit our neighborhood, and call or stop to talk with us. We
hope that you will make an informed decision in favor of neighborhood improvement.
Thank You,
Joyce & Don White
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 7, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, Alison
Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchoff,
Planner I; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Senior Planner; and Dave Hernpel, Assistant City Engineer
(There were audio problems with the first two items on the agenda.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
TERRY BOLEN REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE SEASON PORCH ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 8451 PELICAN COURT.
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Discussion by the Commission centered around the fac. t that the deck was already existing and if
structurally an enclosed porch could be built on top of the deck, the Commission felt comfortable
approving this variance.
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-5
for an 8 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback with the following condition:
The applicant must demonstrate that the existing deck structure is sufficient to support the
three season porch.
All voted in favor, except Joyce who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DON AND JOYCE WHITE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN PORCH ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 8028 DAKOTA AVENUE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Carlos Loudavid
Don & Joyce White
8039 Dakota Lane
8028 Dakota Avenue
Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Don and Joyce White presented pictures to the commission comparing what their house looks
like to the neighboring properties. Commissioner Conrad stated that staff should relook at the
ordinance for situations like this where the lot is a substandard lot of 12,000 square feet and 85
feet of street frontage. The other commissioners felt the deck was a good addition to the house.
Joyce moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-9 for a 5
foot variance from the 30 front yard setbacks for the construction of an addition. All
voted in favor, except Conrad and Peterson who opposed, and the motion failed with a vote
of 4 to 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SAWHORSE DESIGNERS MARK AMBROSEN AND ANN SENN REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE TO THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 3830 MAPLE
SHORES DRIVE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kent Forss
Fred Bruning
Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn
3850 Maple Shores Drive
4740 42nd Avenue No, Robbinsdale
3830 Maple Shores Drive
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
(Taping of the meeting began again at this point in the discussion.)
Fred Bruning: Hi, my name is Fred Bruning from Sawhorse Designers and Builders. I'd like to
address a couple points in the staff recommendations. Adding a bedroom I think is reasonable
use ora property. The issue is not putting the addition on. There are many places that we could
meet the setback requirements with the addition. The hardship is created by those recommended
locations, what happens to the property, views of the property. The proposed addition is off the
side...They've got a very beautiful back yard area...side yard setbacks. While their deck's right
off the dining room... Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn have kind of a unique situation. The
design of the home has a master bedroom suite on the main floor, but all the other bedrooms are
on the lower level. For a newborn they showed a desire of having a newborn close by. Other
homes in the neighborhood appear from the outside to be construction has most of the bedrooms
on the same level. So it is kind of unique with this home. The home is also at the end of a street
that rises along the lakeshore. By the time they get to the end, the last lot which is Mark and