Loading...
5 Variance Lot 4 Bl 4 ChanVistaCiTY OF PC DATE: 7/7/99 CCDATE: 7/26/99 CASE #: 99-8 VAR By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a 5 .foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family dwelling. 740 Chippewa Circle (Lot 4, Block 4, Chanhassen Vista) Pat & Judy Neuman 1654 Portland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 615/647-5136 David Segal Shelard Development Co, 11900 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 208 Minnetonka, MN 546-5747 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential Approximately 27,000 sq. ft. N/A N: S: E: W: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential Kerber Pond Park Available to the site The site is vacant. A bluff exists on the western portion of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Road a Dr Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The development contract for the Chanhassen Vista development permits Lot 4, Block 4 to maintain a 25 foot front yard setback. Section 20-1 defines a bluff as a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having the following characteristics: 1. The slope rises at least 25 percent above the toe of the bluff; and 2. The grade of the slope from the top of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater. 3. An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Section 20-1401 (a) of the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff (Attachment 2). PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE A public hearing was held on this item on July 7, 1999. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the variance with the conditions recommended by staff. The neighbors residing at 720 Chippewa Trail and 751 Chippewa Trail have appealed the decision. The appeal letter is located in Attachment 7. Staff would like to address the neighbors' concerns. Their issues are as follows: ISSUE 1. The proposed home is not comparable to existing homes (i.e., no back yard~ only property, that does not meet the bluff setback, largest home in the immediate existing neighborhood). Finding: Staff has determined that this home is comparable in size and location to the existing homes. It does not deviate from existing neighborhood standards and conditions. First, the property will have a rear yard. The rear yard is the bluff and the conservation easement. The fact that the property will not have a traditional "back yard" is irrelevant. The aerial photographs indicate that many of the homes in this addition of Chanhassen Vista do not have a fiat rear yard. It is a lot of record. Also, the site will have a side yard that is consistent with other properties in this development. The reason the applicant selected this design was 'to preserve the southern portion for fiat side yard. Second, this is not the only property in Chanhassen Vista that is built into the bluff. According to aerial photographs from 1989, 12 lots have a bluff on the property and 6 lots Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 3 have homes that extend into the bluff. Additionally, if the homes were built today, 7 out of the 12 could not be constructed in the same location on the site because they do not meet the required 30 foot bluff setback. The ordinance states that homes built prior to June 1, 1991 must maintain a 5 foot setback or the existing setback, whichever is greater. Any additions to the existing homes would have to meet the 5 foot setback. Attachment 8 indicates the top of the bluff, the conservation easement and the location of the homes on Chippewa Trail, Chippewa Circle and a portion of Santa Vera Drive. Finally, the proposed home is compatible in size to the existing homes. The applicant has proposed to construct a 1,997 sq. ft., 48 foot by 50 foot (including the porch) home on the site. As Table 1 indicates this proposal is not excessively large for this development. TABLE1 CHANHASSEN VISTA, BLOCK 4 and a PORTION OF BLOCK 3 HOME STATISTICS Address Sq. ft. Dimensions Year Built 720 Chippewa Circle 1,719 51' x 46' 1987 751 Chippewa Circle 1,736 56' x 46' 1987 7405 Chippewa Trail 2,175 48' x 48' 1987 7410" 2,140 53' x 36' 1987 7420" 1,790 56' x 32' 1987 7425" unknown 35' x 35' unknown 7500" 2,547 39' x 46' 1987 7520" 2,204 56' x 32' 1987 740 Santa Vera Drive 2,096 58' x 33' 1987 760" 2,190 58' x 35' 1987 780" 1,384 53' x 50' 1987 790" 2,016 48' x 51' 1987 Source: Building permit files. Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 4 720 Chippewa Circle 751 Chippewa Circle ISSUE 2. Reasonable use does not require a 16 foot encroachment into bluff Finding: The proposed use is the same use made by other property owners within 500 feet. The Planning Commission approved two variances based upon the staff revised home layout. The revision reduced the encroachment of the foundation into the bluff. The only encroachment will be the main level porch, lower level deck and two small corners of the home. This is appropriate given the neighborhood standards (Attachment 8). According to the aerial photographs, 7 of the neighboring homes could not be built today because they cannot meet the 30 foot setback. It is likely that 6 of the homes could not construct an addition on the rear of the home because they could not meet the 5 foot setback required for homes built prior to June 1991. Staff is comfortable recommending approval of this variance because of the existing conditions in the development. Furthermore, the grading plan for Chanhassen Vista indicates that the elevation of the rear of the home was to be at 997.5 (Attachment 9). The current proposal is consistent with that plan. Ncuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 5 In this instance, the literal enforcement of the ordinance causes an undue hardship. The development requires a 25 foot front yard setback and the topography of the lot requires a 30 foot bluff setback, which in turn limits the amount of buildable area. It is not difficult to justify granting the two variances. Properties that were platted prior to various ordinances (e.g., minimum lot area, setbacks) are the reason variances are granted. Not granting this variance is not a mere inconvenience for the property owner, it is a "taking." That is, taking the rights of the property owner without compensation. The City must allow the applicant to have a reasonable use of the property. ISSUE 3. Conservation Easement was not mentioned Finding: The property has a "scenic" or conservation easement. The home does not encroachment into the easement. This easement was approved as part of the development and is in addition to the bluff setback. The property owner cannot locate any structures in this easement nor can any vegetation be removed. ISSUE 4. Subject site inconsistent with neighborhood and unsuitable for building Finding: Lot 4, Block 4 is a lot of record. It was approved as part of the chanhassen Vista development. The site was intended for a single family home. A home pad was shown on the preliminary grading plans (Attachment 9) thus demonstrating that this lot is buildable. The proposal is consistent with the plan. Carver Beach subdivision was platted in the 1920s and does not meet the modern ordinance requirements. However, they are lots of record and the owner does have the right to construct a single family home. Many variances have been granted in Carver Beach to allow the owner a reasonable use. This instance is no different. ISSUE 5. The variances requested are extreme Finding: Staff believes that the home design is consistent with neighboring properties and that the variances should be approved. The applicant has presented a reasonably-sized home. Actually, any style of home proposed for this site will encroach into the bluff setback. This home is no different from the others in the development. The applicant is not requesting anything more that the neighboring properties currently enjoy (see Table 1). This report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdate information has been struckthrough. BACKGROUND Chanhassen Vista was platted in 1985 6. Several of the lots in this PUD, including the subject site, were granted a 5 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback. In an effort to Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 6 preserve the slope and shift the house footprints from the slope, this and other lots abutting Kerber Pond Park have "scenic easements." This easement protects the westerly 120 feet of the lot. The proposal does not encroach into this easement. (The conservation easement is required to be shown on the survey submitted at the time of building permit.) Lot 4, Block 4, Chanhassen Vista from Chippewa Circle from Kerber Blvd. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on the site. The buildable area is limited by the required 25 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks and the 30 foot bluff protection setback. The proposed home is a two-story, walk-out design. Its foundation is 44 feet in depth and 42 feet in width at its widest point. The buildable area (see Attachment 9) is essentially a triangle and is a total of approximately 747 sq. ft. (23 feet at its greatest depth and 4 feet at its smallest). The applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard setback and the bluff protection setback. Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 7 ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home. The home foundation encroaches 5 feet into the bluff and the deck extends 17 feet beyond the top of the bluff. Reasonable Use The subject site is a lot of record. It was platted for the construction of a single family home. The buildable area is constrained by the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. When the property was platted, the City did not have the required setback from the top of a bluff. This ordinance was adopted after Chanhassen Vista was approved and fully developed. In order for the property owner to make a reasonable use of the property similar to the neighbors, a variance(s) will have to be granted. 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, because it is in a RSF/PUD-R zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home with a two-stall garage. Staff supports the applicant being granted variances to construct a reasonable-sized home on the property. The home plan the applicant submitted is comparable with the homes in the development. The applicant would like to have the same right as the neighbors to construct a single family home. If a variance is not granted the applicant will not be able to construct a single family home on the site and the property owner's rights have been taken without compensation. Front Yard Setback The applicant is proposing to locate a home 20 feet from the property line abutting Chippewa Circle. The PUD allows this lot to maintain a 25 foot setback so the variance request is only 5 feet. Staff supports this variance so the majority of the foundation can be located out of the bluff. Furthermore, this is the minimum setback that can be supported so larger vehicles can be parked in the driveway. Bluff Protection Setback This PUD was platted prior to the adoption of the bluff protection ordinance City-wide in 1994. This ordinance requires a 30 foot setback from the top or toe of the bluff for new homes. On parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of the bluff is five feet or the existing setback, whichever is more, for additions to an existing building. Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 8 According to the aerial photos on file at the City, 6 of the homes in this addition extend into the bluff. ~ few ^c,u~ extends int~ the bluff. This proposal does not maintain any setback because a comer of the house and the majority of the deck is located in the bluff. According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the western comer of the home and deck extend 17 feet into the bluff. The applicant would like 8 feet of decking on the lower level of the home in addition to the 8 feet located under the main level porch. (This decking has been drawn on the survey by staff.) This means the lower deck would extend 16 feet from the foundation of the home. The applicant would like the lower level deck to enjoy the site. Although staff supports a variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback, the foundation should not extend into the bluff to minimize the impact (grading and slope disturbance) on the bluff. However, the footings for the porch and deck will be located in the bluff. When the bluff protection setback was adopted in 1991, it only Pertained to the bluffs in southern Chanhassen (the Minnesota River Valley bluffs). The original intent was to prevent further erosion of properties south of Pioneer Trail. In 1994, the ordinance was adopted City-wide to preserve extreme topography. The following table examines the six variances granted since 1991. TABLE2 VARIANCES GRANTED FROM THE REQUIRED BLUFF SETBACK Case # Address Variance 91-21 1405 West Farm Rd. A variance to permit a single family home to encroach 30 feet into the Staff recommendation: bluff; no setback denial (no hardship) 92-6 9980 Deerbrook Drive A variance to permit an in-ground pool to encroach 13 feet into the Staff recommendation: bluff; no setback approval (limited buildable area) 95-6 1070 Hesse Farm Rd. A 5 foot variance from the bluff setback and a 5 foot variance from the front Staff recommendation: yard setback for a single approval family home (limited buildable area) 97-1' 7500 Erie Avenue A 13 foot variance from the bluff setback for a Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 9 single family home Staff recommendation: denial (no hardship) 98-4 240 Eastwood Court An 18.5 foot variance from the bluff setback to construct a deck Staff recommendation: denial (no hardship) 98-11 1250 Hesse Farm Rd. A 5 foot variance from the bluff setback for the construction of a screen Staff recommendation: porch denial (no hardship) Plat approved after 1994. Staff's Recommendation Staff would recommend the home be rotated approximately 30 degrees to the south, while maintaining the 20 foot front yard setback and the 10 foot side yard setback at the north eastern comer of the proposed home (see Attachment 5). This pivot will limit the protrusion into the bluff to two small corners of the foundation. Ideally, there shall be no structure encroaching into the bluff, but that is not possible with the main level porch and lower level deck. It is recommended that the lower deck not exceed 16 feet in depth to limit the encroachment into the bluff by that distance. This is a condition of approval. The Planning Commission approved the variances based upon Staff's recommendation that the home be shifted to reduce the protrusion into the bluff area. Grading It is recommended that grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet of the foundation of the home on the west or bluff side to preserve the slope. This is a condition of approval. Yard Encroachments In cases where a variance is granted, the zoning ordinance does not permit any encroachments into the setback such as eaves or bay windows. This means the 20 foot front yard setback shall be measured from the edge of the eave on the garage (not from the foundation) to the property line abutting Chippewa Circle. Staff believes the applicant has demonstrated a hardship and supports the front yard variance and bluff setback variance. Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 10 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: Co do eo 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 literal enforcement of the ordinance does cause a hardship. The applicant could not construct a home on this site without relief from the zoning ordinance. The topography of the site requires a bluff setback, thus limiting the buildable area to 747 sq. fi. Of the 13 properties that have a bluff on the site, 6 of the homes extend into the bluff. This is a pre-existing neighborhood standard. The granting of these variances will not depart downward from these standards. 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. Many properties have extreme topography which may meet the definition of a bluff. 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 to obtain relief from the zoning ordinance to construct a single family home on a vacant parcel. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is not self-created. The site was platted prior to the bluff protection ordinance was adopted city-wide in 1994. 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 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.. Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 11 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. Finding: 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves variance request #99-8 for a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction ora single family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. The home shall be rotated to the south as shown on the plans prepared by staff to minimize the area of the foundation that encroaches into the bluff. 2. Grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet of the foundation of the home into the bluff. 3. The lower deck cmmot encroach more than 16 feet into the bluff. · 4. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. 5. The top of the bluff shall be noted on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application. 6. The conservation easement shall be shown on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-1400, Bluff Protection Ordinance and bluff definition 3. Section 20-908, Yard Regulations 4. Lot Survey, Buildable Area and Home Elevation and Footprint 5. Staff Revised Home Location 6. Public hearing notice and property owners Neuman Variance July 21, 1999 Page 12 7. Appeal Letter 8. Chanhassen Vista Site Conditions 9. Chanhassen Vista Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan 10. Minutes from the July 7, 1999 City Council meeting g:\plan\ck\boa\neuman 99-8 vat.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 'TELEPHONE(Daytime), ~.~"( ~; ~') .,~-/'~/~ RECEIVED rvlAY ~ 8 1999 CITY 0~' C, HANHASSEt. ADDRESS: ~,,~".~ .~,..~,~ -- I1 ~ N/v, ~Y~ ~/~ TELEPHONE: U~'..~ .F~'~- ~" r) ~f_~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit _~ Variance ~ ~]d'~) Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit PJanned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign Site Plan Review* Subdivision* X Escrpw-fc~r Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ({$501CU P/S P R/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes 'and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ -'7',~,-'~>-/-~ / A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property ,must be included with the · . ~...~ ~',',~ -,Bm't~Fmg-matertal-samples-must-be-submltted-with-site-plan-reviews, -*Twenty-six full'size-f.olded~copies-ofthe plans must be-submltted,-tncluding'an'81/2"'X11" reduced copyof transparency-for-each.plan sheet. : Escrow-will-be-required forother-applications-th roug h-the-development-contract---____ ]~DTE-When muttiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. REJECT NAME 3T, AL ACREAGE E'J'LANDS PRESENT :~-SENTZON]NG YES ~ NO --QUESTC-_D ZONING :~ESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION -'OUE. STED LAND USE DESIGNATION -~ASON ]:OR THIS REQUEST ~ is application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information ,.~' d plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning ~ar~ent to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ']eterrn~nat]on of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written rice z3f application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. ~; is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either 3y of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make ~ applica,ti~)n and the fee owner has also signed this application.- nql 'keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further :lerstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any :horization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of ~u-~owledge. hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing ,uirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day be completed within 120 days unless additional review :ension for development review. Development review shall =nsions are approved by the applicant. r~ture ~)f Fete Owner ~l~caI]on Received on f Date Fee Paid .~.5' {~ Receipt No. IIIq applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Attachment A. e~"" r~: C';HANHASSEN MAY 2 7 1999 CHANrIA~:~ r~t~u~ ur~PT Lot 4 was established before passage of an ordinance for a 30 fi. setback from a bluff line. With the 30 ft. bluff ordinance enforced, the dimensions and topography of the lot do not allow for the construction ora family home. The applicant requests to build an average size family home on the lot. A drawing of the plan (attachment B.), was designed to meet both I0 ft. side setbacks, in consideration of the concerns of the immediate neighbors, and to have the smallest possible impact to the bluffarea. In consideration that the house would not have a backyard lawn, due to the existing slope and natural vegetation, the 8 ft. deck area that is shown to surround the southeast portion of the proposed house is considered to be very impo~ant. A variance to the bluff ordinance and front setback is requested, as shown on attachment B. ,~' /,,¢-/-wce 0.4 -tilt' h~.J6' a{~-~/o (~) ,-tfl~ I ZONING § 20-1402 Secs. 20.1352--20-1399. Reserved. ARTICLF. XXVIII. BLUFF PROTECTION Sec. 20-1400. Statement of intent. Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluffimpact zone may result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city. To preserve the character of the bluff impact.zone within the city, alteration to land or vegetation within the bluff area will not be permitted except as regulated by this article and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the property is located. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 2, 4-8-96) Sec. 20-1401. Structure setbacks. ~)Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluffand must be set back from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least thirty (30) feet. (b) On parcels ofland on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for additions to an existing building. Any new buildings will have to meet the thirty-foot setback. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 3, 4-8-96) Sec. 20-1402. Stairways, lifts and landings. Stairways and lifts may be permitted in suitable sites where construction will not redirect water flow direction and/or increase drainage velocity. Major topographic alterations are prohibited. Stairways and lifts must receive an earthwork permit and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts may .not exceed four (4) feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational properties, and planned unit developments. (2) Reserved. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots. Supp. No. 9 1273 § 20-1402 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (6) Facilities such as ramps, lif~s, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards ofsubitems (1) to (5) are complied with. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 218, § 1, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-1403. Removal or alteration of vegetation. Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone is prohibited except for limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees to provide a view from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings and access paths. Removal or alteration of vegetation must receive prior approval of the planning director or designee. An on-site review will be made to determine if the removal or alteration of vegetation will require new ground cover. In no case shall clearcutting be permitted. City staff will work with the property owner to develop a means of creating a view while minimizing disturbance to the bluff impact zone. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Sec. 20-1404. Topographic alterations/grading and filling. An earthwork permit will be required for the movement of more that ten (10) cubic yards of material within bluff impact zones. The permit shall be granted if the proposed alteration does not adversely affect the bluff impact zone or other property. Topographic alterations/grading and filling within the bluffimpact zone shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage. The drainage from property within the bluff impact zone may not be redirected without a permit from the city. Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Sec. 20-1405. Roads, driveways and parking areas. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exists. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause adverse impacts. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Sec. 20-1406. Reserved. Editor's note~Section 2 of Ord. No. 218, adopted Aug. 22, 1994, deleted former § 20-406, pertaining to the official bluff impact zone map, derived from Ord. No. 152, adopted Oct. 14, I991. Supp. No. 9 1274 ZONING § 20-1449 Sec. 20.1407. Reconstruction of lawful nonconforming structures. Lawful nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed may be recon- structed provided that it is reconstructed within one (1) year following its damage or destruction and provided the nonconformity is not materially increased. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Secs. 20-1408~20-1449. Reserved. Supp. No. 9 1274.1 ZONING § 20-1 Alley means a public right-of-way that is used primarily for secondary vehicular service access to the back or the side of properties abutting on a street. Alteration means any change or rearrangement, other than incidental repairs, in the supporting members of an existing building, such as bearing walls, columns beams, girders or interior partitions, as well as any change in doors or windows, or any enlargement to or diminution of a building or structure, whether horizontally or vertically, or the moving of a building or structure from one (1) location to another. Animal feedlot means land or buildings used for the confined feeding, breeding, raising or holding of livestock and poultry where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. Pastures are not considered animal feedlots. Antenna means any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting electromagnetic waves, including, but not limited to, directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes; and omnidirectional antennas, such as whip antennas. Arboretum means a place where plants, trees, and shrubs are cultivated for scientific and educational purposes. Arterial street means a street or highway with access restrictions designed to carry large values of traffic between various sectors of the city or county and beyond. [Auto service center] means an integrated group of commercial establishments or single establishments planned, developed, and managed as a unit'with off-street parking provided on site and providing uses engaged primarily in the supplying of goods and services generally required in the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. These may include sale and servicing of tires, batteries, automotive accessories, replacement items, washing and lubricat- ing services, and the performance of minor automotive maintenance and repair. This does not include major body repair where it is necessary to provide long term storage of cars and body parts. Bed and breakfast means an owner-occupied singie-family home in which not more than five (5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of seven (7) or less consecutive days by the same person. Meals may or may not be provided to residents and overnight guests. Block means an area of land within a subdivision that is entirely bounded by streets, or by streets and the exterior boundary or boundaries of the subdivision, or.a combination of the above with a waterway or any other barrier to the continuity of development. ~ Bluff means a natural topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics: (1) The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet above the toe of the bluff; and The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point twenty-five (25) feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages thirty (30) percent or greater. (3) An area with an average slope ofless than eighteen (18) percent over a distance for fifty (50) feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Supp. No. I1 1141 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 ofthe 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) A yard, 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. Thefollowing not to (variances granted from a shall be considered be obstructions 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 project 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 * PIONEER Certificate LAND SIJ~V~YO~RS - eVIL ~Nr~s LANO PLANNERS · LANOSCAP[ ARCHITECTS of Survey for: House Address: House Model: 2422 Enterprise Drive Idendota Heights, MN 55120 (612) 681-1914. FAX:681-9488 625 Hlghwoy 10 N,E. Blolne. MN 5,5434 (612) 783-1880 FAX:78,3-1885 PAT NEUMAN RECEIVED JUN 01 1999 CITY OF CH^NHASSEN oD o 985..35 ,,6.,, , .... 1002.20 curb "9oo.o Denotes Existing Elevation ~ Denotes Proposed Elevation -----,--Denotes Drainage Flow Dlrectlon _ _ Denotes Drainage z, Utility Easement --o-- Deno(es Monument e Denotes Offset Iron Bearings shown ore assumed LOT 4, BLOCK 4 PROPOSED BO2LD~g Lowest Floor Elevation: 000.00 Top of Block Elevation: 000.00 Garage Slab Elevation: 000.00 (at door) NOT[: Pro~oeed building lite grading I. In accordonce with the grading plonl approved by the city engineer. NOTE: C~trector muir verify ell dlme~el~ns & driveway de*lgn. CHANHASSEN VISTA CARVER COUNT% MINNESOTA we hereby cerlify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and tho[ I o duly licensed Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this Lend Signed: .,., PIONEER ENGINEERING,' 'P,A. /// ,~ ,,-" ?. / Scale: linch = 40feet Robert B. Siklch, US. Reg. No. 14891 or O0000CO0 Terrence E. Rothenbocher, L.S. Reg. No. 20595 * PIONEER ~ 8nEIInearlng CerLificate of Survey for: PAT NEUMAN House Address: C~CA-DE House Model: XXX BUILDABLE AREA )- (612) 881-1914 FAX:681-9488 625'Highway 10 N,E. Blaine. MN 55434 (612) 785--1880 FAX: 785-1885 RECEIVEI) juH o :t 1999 CiTY OF CHANHASSEN oo t~J CONSEIRVATION o 98, o 985,~ EASEMENT ggT.' [ 996.~7 setback 9o0.0 Denotes Existing Elevation ~ Denotes Proposed Elevation - Denotes Drainage Flow Direction __ __ Denotes Drainage & Utility Easement · --.o-- Denotes Monument · Denotes Offset Iron Bearings shown are assumed LOT 4, BLOCK 4 ~.r~OPOEED BEI]7,,DIlCG gT, g~A~lOJ~ Lowest Floor Elevation: 000.00 Top of Block Elevation: 000.00 Garage Slob Elevation: 000.00 (at door) CHANHASSEN VISTA CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA we hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I o duly licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the Slate of I~Ainnesoto. Doted this Signed: ~ PI~EER ENGINEERING. P.A. Scale: 1~" :40'~ ~ ' ':; // Robert B. Sikich. LS. Reg. N0, 14891 or O0000CO0 Terrence E. Ro~henbacher. L.S. Reg. No. 20595 ~, · , OF CHANH. ASSE'N PECF.. fflAY 2 ? 1999 Fi "i~; 822"~uar" feet Second~. ~r~J~7~:,.Square feet Total: '[9¢7;:~.",'~i~are feet The wraparound porch surrounding this shingled home provides a front row seat to enjoy the soothing sounds of the country--literally. At the entrance to the front porch, a built-in bench has been thoughtfully placed for conve- nience. Inside, an open floor plan makes the most of the first-floor living area. Enhanced with built-ins, a warming fireplace extends a friendly invitation into the great room. Here, a wall of windows provides plenty of natural light and unobstructed views of the backyard. A bay window fills the adjacent nook with sunlight and brightens the adjoining U-shaped kitchen. Located near the garage for convenience, a laundry room and powder room complete the first floor. The second floor contains a restful master suite, two family bedrooms that share a full bath, and a game room. Design by Alan Mascord Design Associates, Inc. -'2 ;PIONEER ~ ei~E!Iniierlng o~ Survey fo~: PAT NEUMAN House Address: C~$CADE COU~R~T- House Model: 2427 rnt~rprine Drive Mendol. a Heights, MN 55120 (e~2) 681-1914 FAX:681-9488 625 Highway 10 N.£. -- Blaine. MI~ 55434 (612) 785-1880 FAX: 783-1885 RECEIVED JUN 0 :L 1999 CiTY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REVISED HOME LOCATION 1002.20 ~ o 985.55 "9oo. o Denotes Existing Elevation ~ Denotes Proposed Elevation ~ Denotes Drainage Flow Direction '._ --' Denotes Drainage & U[lllty Easement ~ Denoles ~onumen! e Denoles Offset Iron E~earlngs shown ore assumed LOT 4, BLOCK 4 E.qOEO~ED BCFE, D~(~ JTzJ~/'A~O~ Lowest Floor Elevation: 000.00 Top of Block Elevation: 00CL00 Garage Slab ETevaflon: O00.QQ (al: door) CHANHASSEN VISTA CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA We hereby certify [hot tt~is survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I (3 duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of I. he store o~ Minnesota. Dated this '~--~ (~ ~ day of . /~,.,~-; A.D. 19_~ Signed: ,~ PIO~IEER ENGINEERI/~/,G. P.A. Scale: 1~.--~ - 40~.~ "~ / / ~ Robert B. Sikich. gS. Reg. No. 14891 or O0000CO0 Terre, ce E. Rothe~boch~r. L.S. Reg. No. 20595 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS t~ 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Request for a Front Yard and Bluff Setback Variance APPLICANT: LOCATION: Pat and Judy Neuman Lot 4, Block 4, Chanhassen Vista NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Pat and Judy Neuman, are requesting a variance to the 30 foot bluff setback and a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family home on property zoned PUD-R and located on Lot 4, Block 4, Chanhassen Vista (Chippewa Circle). 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. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. 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 Villager on June 24, 1999. Smo..oth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5~.60® -- & BETH I_ARSON CANYON CURVE .qHASSEN, MN 55317 ~IETH WOLTER CANYON CURVE ,JHASSEN, MN 55317 ', LORI WALL CANYON CURVE ~HASSEN, MN 55317 ,I PODERGOIS CHIPPEWA CIRCLE ~IHASSEN, MN 55317 _ARD PLAZA COMPANY INTERCHANGE TOWER :,O. HIGHWAY 169 :)UIS PARK, MN 55426 LAURIE CLAUSON :HIPPEWA CIRCLE ~IHASSEN, MN 55317 ~IFER OLSON CHIPPEWA TRAIL JHASSEN, MN 55317 --RT & AIMEE O'MALLEY CHIPPEWA TRAIL ,IHASSEN, MN 55317 .~E MEYER CHIPPEWA TRAIL IHASSEN, MN 55317 :~RD A. JAEGER,JR. CHIPPEWA TRAIL IHASSEN, MN 55317 THERESA HENNEN 7440 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JACK NOBLE 7445 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RODOLFO ALEJO 7465 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LOUIS & AMY GAGLIARDI 7480 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CAROL TRICK 7485 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY M. WALLIN 7490 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICK TANNER 7495 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID LEMKE 7500 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL T. FARKAS 7501 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ADELHEID FELTMAN 7520 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY S. PESHEK 7521 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOSEPH BUSCEMI 7540 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOM OWENS 7541 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN CONNELLY 900 SADDLEBROOK CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK YOUKER 901 SADDLEBROOK CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRIAN LIPSIUS 740 SANTA VERA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TRUC LE 760 SANTA VERA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 H.J. SKALLE 780 SANTA VERA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 H. J. MARSHALL, M.D. 790 SANTA VERA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN PRZYMUS 642 SANTA VERA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .~uly 8, 1999 .]on and Laurie Clauson 751 Chippewa Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 949-8915 Lot 5, Block 4, Chanhassen Vista .John and Laura Podergois 720 Chippewa Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 934-4758 Lot 3, Block 4, Chanhassen Vista City of chanhassen Planning Committee City of Chanhassen City Council c/o City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom it May Concern: We would like to file an appeal to the ruling of the Planning Committee made at the .luly 7th, 1999 committee meeting regarding Case #99-8 (Neuman Variance; Lot 4, Block 4, Chanhassen Vista). The Planning Committee recommended a 5 foot front yard setback variance and the elimination of the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home. In addition, the Planning Committee recommended that the dwelling be allowed to encroach 16 feet into the bluff area. The staff report indicates that the development will be "comparable with the homes in the development". This is incorrect. This would be the only dwelling in the immediate development (Chippewa Trail and Chippewa Circle) without any backyard. It would have the smallest front/side yard of any existing house. It would be the only development in the immediate neighborhood allowed to be built down into the bluff area. Finally, it would be one of the largest homes in the immediate existing neighborhood. We would like the Planning Committee and City Council to consider the current neighborhood and evaluate the size and location of the proposed development. "Reasonable use" of the lot could be obtained without having both the foundation and proposed deck encroaching 16 feet into the bluff. One of the reasons we purchased and built our current homes in this neighborhood was due to the reasonable size of the houses in proportion to the buildable lot size. Today, it seems that more developments are being built with the largest house possible on the smallest lot available. We did not want to live in such a development. With the current ordinances in place, we did not believe that the city would allow our neighborhood to become such a development. The staff report also implied that no conservation easements have been in place on this lot between the creation of the development (1987) and the city-wide bluff protection ordinance (1994). This is incorrect, conservation easements on this property have been in place since platted in 1987. We strongly believe and have abided by any conservation and bluff easements in place at the time of any development. We strongly disagree with any violation of these easements. · Page 2 July8, 1999 We also felt that during the Planning Committee meeting, the owner of the property misled committee members as to the history of the lot. The lot was purchased from Enterprise Development (Saul Segal, Director) by Novak-Fleck Development. Novak-Fleck found the lot to be un-buildable and was unable to design a suitable single family dwelling on the property. The lot then fell back into the hands of the original owner, Enterprise Development. The contact on the "for sale" sign currently on the property lists Enterprise Development (original owner), not Shelard Development. David Segal implied that the property has not been developed for twelve years due to transfer of ownership and tax purposes. We feel that the lot has not been developed because it was platted to be inconsistent with the neighborhood and unsuitable for building. We do not feel that our property value should be impacted because of this platting error made twelve years ago. In summary, we oppose both the front setback variance and the elimination of the bluff protection setback. The applicant is requesting a total of 5:[ feet of variance (5 feet in front + 30 feet bluff setback + :[6 feet encroachment into the bluff). Variances of such an extreme nature should not be allowed. The proposed dwelling will consume the entire lot with very little green yard lot remaining (it appears that the dwelling will have approximately the same size yard as driveway). There is a reason that this lot has remained vacant for twelve years. We STRONGLY encourage you to visit the site before making your final decision. We feel that the paper lot survey looks very deceptive towards the size of the actual buildable land. We thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jon and Laurie Clauson Residents of Chanhassen for Seven Years John and Laura Podergois Residents of Chanhassen for Twelve Years ~ub]ec' ~0 ~°o Property of Bluff uff Setb; t117 9 1 be$, on 19t 1 6 5 1 Aerial Photo Plmming Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed land surveyor at the time of building permit application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PAT AND JUDY NEUMAN REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT BLUFF SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD- 4 AND LOCATED ON LOT 4~ BLOCK 4, CHANHASSEN VISTA (CHIPPEWA CIRCLE). Public Present: Name Address David Segal Judy & Pat Neuman Laurie Clauson Laura Podergois Dennis Karstensen 2220 Cap Code Place, Minnetonka 1654 Portland, St. Paul 751 Chippewa Circle 720 Chippewa Circle 7482 Saratoga Drive Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: ...I assume we'll find out momentarily but does the applicant...? Okay, I'll find out in a few minutes. Other questions of staff?. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have one question. What is the width of the lot right at the very, at the street? The street frontage. Kirchoff: 42 feet. Blackowiak: Okay, that is the 42 at the street. Don't we have a minimum street frontage? Kirchoff.' It is 90 feet at the 30 foot setback or in this case a 25 foot setback. On cul-de-sac lots you have to measure back to make sure it's 90 feet at the 30 foot. At the required front yard setback. In this case it's 25 feet for the whole PUD. Blackowiak: Alright and so, and they meet the 25 is what? Kirchoff: If the subdivision would come in today, that's what they would be required to making. Blackowiak: Okay, and does this lot meet that setback is my question? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Kirchoff: Dave, do you have a scale? Blackowiak: It's not to scale? Hempel: It's not to scale. The drawing's been reduced. Kirchoff: No, it does not meet the minimum 90 feet. But again it's a PUD and they may have approved it that way. It looks like it's about 80 feet in width at the 25 foot setback. Blackowiak: Okay, and so you're, are you comfortable then with the size of the lot? Aanenson: Well the lot's existing. What we're looking at now is the standards that were put in place with that subdivision. Applying those standards for that. It's different standards. 15,000 square foot lot with 30 foot setback, front and rear. So what we're looking at is the standards that were put in place for this lot. Was your question for a building 'for that lot? Blackowiak: Kind of yeah. I mean it's so tiny. At the cul-de-sac. Aanenson: The house sits toward the front of the lot. Blackowiak: I mean just the lot itself is rather small. I guess my question was, are you comfortable with the size of the house on the lot? Kirchoff: Yes we are. It's comparable in size to the neighboring properties. Conrad: And how does the building pad relate to the other neighbors? Kirchoff: You mean in terms of placement? I do have the surveys of the adjacent parcels and I could put that up on the. This is the property that is directly to the south of the subject site. The home is, as you can see, it's shifted to, away from Lot 4. This is the property that is directly to the north of the subject site and they have approximately 15 foot side yard setback so the distance between the two houses would be 25 feet if they were to maintain the 10, which is what they're planning on doing. Peterson: Other questions of staff?. Kind: Condition number 2. Grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet of the foundation. Was it your intention for the entire foundation or just on the bluff side? Kirchoff: That's correct, it should be just on the bluff side. Peterson: If there's no more questions for staff, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Pat Neuman: ...we've lived in St. Paul for 20 years and during that time the office that I work at moved to Chanhassen so I've been commuting for the last 4 or 5 years. We have two daughters... The house that we've selected to build on the...two car garage as opposed to a three car garage... Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Laura Podergois' comments were not picked up on tape. She spoke in opposition to the variance request. Laurie Clauson's comments were not picked up on tape. She spoke in opposition to the variance request. Dennis Karstensen's comments were not picked up on tape. He spoke about when this subdivision was platted and the conservation easement that was put in place around Kerber Pond Park. David Segal's comments were not picked up on tape. He was the developer of this subdivision and spoke to the size and configuration of the lot at the time of platting. Pat Neuman: ...square feet. The second floor, 1,175 for a total of 1,997 square feet. For the most, essentially that's what we're proposing is what we see on the drawing here. This isn't, the builder is saying we'll have to, you know we'll have to accommodate the slope and so forth but basically this is what we're intending to put on the property and like I mentioned before, we did go through and try to find several books that we got out of the library. We went through drawing after drawing trying to find a reasonable house that we could put on the property that was comparable, you know for a family. A family home in the area. And I do, certainly do enjoy the neighborhood and I can understand why the neighbors would not want a house in that location. But then again I can understand why someone that has been paying taxes since the mid 1980's on this piece of property and now is told that well you can't sell it because you can't put a house on it. Well there seems to be a problem there. And another point that I'd like to make is, and it might sound kind of up in the air but basically you know we're all talking about trying to reduce urban sprawl and newer houses going out further and further and consuming farmland. But I think basically in St. Paul at least, what they're trying to do there is trying to utilize the land they have so I think, just my feeling from the staff report also be a part of that larger picture. Peterson: Anyone else? Come back up to the podium, yes. Laurie Clauson: ...giving a variance when the majority should... Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, a motion to close. Sidney moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: Commissioners. Your thoughts on this one. Conrad: ... Kirchoff.' The home design is comparable with those in the surrounding neighborhood. It could have been a different design and it may have alleviated or some of the, what I'm trying to say is, any way the design is put on there, they'll still need a 30 foot bluff setback. There's such a limited buildable area that it's difficult to design a house for this lot. Peterson: Even if you find a smaller footprint... Aanenson: To make the lot buildable it has to be a variance... Joyce: Are the other homes approximately 2,000 square feet...? Kirchoff: Just a visual survey, I'd say yeah. Joyce: About the same square footage? Kirchoff: Basically yes. Maybe a little larger. Peterson; I'd say this one is smaller than the other ones. Joyce: So we're talking about pitch rather than the style issues. Peterson: Any comments, questions? Entertain a motion. Conrad: A question Mr. Chairman...what's the rationale for that? What are we trying to do? Kirchoff: I'll explain further. On the main level there is a covered porch, or an open porch. And underneath that the applicant, in the rear part of the house, the west part of the house would like to have a deck. With only an 8 foot deck he doesn't get any light in and it's not really useful so he wanted to do another 8 feet so therefore, that's where I got the 16 feet from for the maximum encroachment into the bluff. Conrad: What protects the rest of the bluff...? Kirchoff: Well, with the shift that staff recommended, the area of the foundation will be minimized that was proposed by the applicant. The applicant had a larger comer of the proposed house into the bluff and with the shift, two small comers of the house will be located in the bluff and actually did make a calculation and as the applicant has proposed, the deck would encroach 17 feet into the bluff and with the shift it was reduced by 1 foot. Conrad: And environmentally what are we saying this is doing? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Kirchoff.' Well it is hoped that by eliminating the amount of foundation in the bluff area that there will be less grading into the bluff. Conrad: So staff does not recommend... Aanenson: Well that's always an option. I guess the fact is that it's a lot of record. We have to grant a variance for them to build. The question... The question the way that Alison asked before...not have the bluff ordinance in place. The other homes are enjoying that. This one was penalized by that and...variance comes in, what is the appropriate... Having said that, the applicant is requesting that style home. So that's what we're... Peterson: Other comments or thoughts? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have another question of staff. The two neighboring homes, what are the front setbacks? Are they at the 25? Kirchoff: The home to the north maintains a 25.5 foot front yard setback. And the property to the south maintains a 25.7 foot front yard setback. Peterson: Other questions? If not, may I have a motion. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance #99-8 for a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report, conditions 1 through 5. Condition 2 stating grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet on the bluff side of the house foundation. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: Moving and second, any discussion? Joyce moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #99-8 for a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following conditions: The home shall be rotated to the south as shown on the plans prepared by staff to minimize the area of the foundation that encroaches into the bluff. 2. Grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet on the bluff side of the foundation of the home. 3. The lower deck cannot encroach more than 16 feet into the bluff. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. The top of the bluff shall be noted on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CSM CORPORATION REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT Iv (39.49 ACRES)~ BLOCK 2~ CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER INTO 5 LOTS AND VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD~ SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions ofstaff. Mr. Chairman I have one. Didn't we see this before? Blackowiak: A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: So why are we seeing it again? Al-Jarl: They are splitting it. The original applicatiOn was withdrawn. It actually was never approved by the City Council so it's a dead plat. Blackowiak: But it was effectively the same. A1-Jaff: It was three buildings rather than four new ones. Blackowiak: Okay. A1-Jaff.' And what they're doing with this one is reducing the size of the lots, the size of the buildings, adding more office and reducing the warehouse portion. Joyce: Sounds good. Blackowiak: The Eden Prairie, yes I'm sure. And then I didn't see a sidewalk as part of the south side. ! know that that was something we had pushed for before and it got dropped. Is there a sidewalk there or is there not one? A1-Jaff: No there isn't. And we will address that with the site plan. 12