Loading...
8 Variance 6728 Lotus TrailCiTY OF PC DATE: 6/2/99 CCDATE: 6~28~99 CASE #: VAR 99-3 By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) A request for a -1-:3 7 foot Variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition; LOCATION: APPLICANT: 6728 Lotus Trail (Carver Beach) Todd Frostad 6728 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 253-8336 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: RSF, Single Family Residential Approximately 30,000 sq. ft. N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N: S: E: W: RSF, Single Family Residential RSF, Single Family Residential Lotus Trail and Lotus Lake RSF, Single Family Residential WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Available to the site The site contains an existing home with a deck located on extreme slopes. The site is a portion of a larger bluff. The area of the existing home probably was graded in the past. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential r Lotus Lal, Fee ITl 'Po ne Frostad Variance June 28, 1999 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On June 2, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. By a unanimous vote, the commission denied the requests for the front and side yard setback variances, but approved the variance from the bluff setback. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny the front yard setback variance. Based upon the comments presented at the meeting, the applicant has revised the addition footprint. The addition has been reduced from 46 feet to 41 feet in depth. The request for the side yard setback has been eliminated. The only request is for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback. This report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdated information has been struck through. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-615 (5) (a) requires a 30 foot front yard setback for structures in the RSF zoning district (Attachment 2). Section 20-908 (5) states that variances granted from a required setback are not entitled to any encroachments including eaves (Attachment 3). Section 20-481 (f) states that structures within the shoreland district may not exceed 35 feet in height (Attachment 4). Section 20-1 defines shoreland as land located with 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake (Attachment 5). Section 20-72(a) states that there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity (Attachment 7). Frostad Variance June 28, 1999 Page 3 Section 20-72(b) states that ifa setback ora dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements (Attachment 7). BACKGROUND Carver Beach was platted in 1927. This is one of the oldest and most unique residential neighborhoods in the City. The lots are generally 20 feet in width and about 100 feet in depth (depending on topography and physical features). The lots, although originally intended for cottages or summer cabins, have been combined to accommodate single family homes. The size and shape of some of the lots, as well as the topography, makes locating a home or an addition difficult at times. Hence, many variances have been granted in this area. Although many of these variances were for lot area, not setbacks. Without these variances, the owner could not make a reasonable use of the property. Many variances have been granted in the Carver Beach area to allow a reasonable use of the property. The subject property was granted a variance in 1986 for the construction of a detached garage and deck. The fact that the property is located in Carver Beach does not guarantee or warrant a variance. Many properties enjoy a reasonable use while maintaining required setbacks. The subject property is an irregular shaped lot and does have topographic challenges. It is a total of 18 lots and a portion of Willow Road right-of-way. The original 2-story, 26 foot by 20 foot log cabin was constructed in 1979. In 1986, a variance was granted to permit the construction of a detached garage and deck/gazebo. During the next year a bedroom and family room addition were constructed. The steps from the garage to the home were reconstructed in 1993. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 4-3 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 2 foc, t variance c,~, ,~,~ , 9 c,,^, ~:,~ 'ard ~'- by ~ 41 (~ ................... 5 ........ for the construction of a 20 foot foot 820 sq. ft )'addition. n~,~ ~*K~I.~ k. ave been ~ .... ~ by 2 r~, to ~*~~*~ .............. ea,~o The rectangular-shaped addition is situated perpendicular to the existing home. The addition extends 13 feet beyond the foundation to the west while maintaining a 10 foot side yard setback. The applicant has reduced the depth of the addition on the west from 14 to 13 feet to eliminate the side yard setback variance. On the east it extends 9 feet, including a 1 foot eave, from the existing home. The front addition has been reduced by 4 feet to lessen the request. The proposal indicates a 23 foot front yard setback, whereas, the original request maintained an 18 foot front yard setback. The zoning ordinance does not pe~it any encroac~ents, including eaves, into setbacks that have received variances. Therefore, the setback is measured from the e e 0fthe eave. t ................. ~ ............................... Frostad Variance June 28, 1999 Page 4 This section has been struck through because the variance from the bluff setback was dbyth PI ni gC i i approve e an n omm ss on. The addition will also have to comply with the shoreland regulations. Theses regulations limit the height of a primary structure to 35 feet within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level of Lotus Lake. This requirement will be reviewed at the time of building permit. Front and Side Yard Variances The applicant would like to construct an addition which protrudes in the required front yard setback and side setbacks. Since the property is a compilation of 18 lots, it is irregular in shape. The property line directly behind (or west) of the existing home is a side yard. The rear property line is abutting Lots 1998 and 1164. The proposed addition would maintain a 23 foot front yard setback (based upon a survey on cave will be 2 feet. The applicant contends that an 8 foot addition is required for a new entrance on the "log home." Apparently, the door is proposed to be 3 feet in width 2.5 feet required on each side to ensure structural integrity. Staff dOes not believe the applicant has demonstrated a hardship based upon the following: 1. The interior of the addition can be modified to shift the entrance to the west to eliminate the variance request. 2. A 20 foot by 34 foot addition can be constructed on this site within the required setbacks. (This distance is based upon a survey on file with the City.) 3. A reasonable use is present on the site. Frostad Variance June 28, 1999 Page 5 It must be mentioned that staff does not intend to limit the design/style of the home. However, this is not justification for a hardship. The purpose of the request is to construct a new entrance on the north elevation. The existing gazebo and the upper portion of the exterior stairs are proposed to be removed for the addition. There is a significant elevation change on this site so the lower set of stairs will remain as access from the garage to the home. The site is proposed to be graded for the new entrance on the lower level. Currently, the home is accessed from the main level. In 1986, staff recommended approval of the variance for the deck/gazebo. However, this recommendation was based on misinformation. That is, the site plan submitted with the application depicts the deck as meeting the required 25 foot setback (decks can encroach 5 feet into a required front, side and rear setback) and the gazebo only encroaching an additional 5 feet. Staff believes that the report would not have been so favorable had a survey been prepared indicating the true setbacks. The main portion of the deck was constructed to maintain a 20 foot setback and the gazebo only a 12.5 foot setback. Since the deck was not constructed per plans, it is non-conforming. Permitting the addition to encroach into the front yard setback would be increasing the non- conformity. There is no a reason why the addition cannot maintain the required 30 foot front yard setback. According to an existing survey, the existing home is approximately 32 feet from the property line abutting Lotus Trail. The interior plans indicate that a bedroom is proposed in the addition toward Lotus Trail. The bedroom could be located over the proposed addition on the rear of the home, where it is open to below. T?.e western ~, .................................. Pre-existing Neighborhood Standards Many of the homes in Carver Beach do not meet all of the required front, side or rear yard setbacks because the subdivision was platted when Chanhassen was a township. However, this does not justify recommending approval of this application. Also, many of the lots do not meet the minimum dimensions for RSF lots. This property does. Staff surveyed building files for parcels surrounding the subject site. The following table provides a summary. TABLE 1 SETBACKS IN CARVER BEACH Address Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback 6680 Lotus Trail 30' 10'+ 6724 Lotus Trail 9' 10' 6728 Lotus Trail 12.5' 17' Frostad Variance June 28, 1999 Page 6 6730 Lotus Trail 6780 Lotus Trail 746 Carver Beach Rd. 750 Carver Beach Rd. 760 Carver Beach Rd. no survey no survey 37' no survey 18'+ 10'+ 10'+ It must be mentioned that when this home was constructed in 1979, the zoning ordinance required a 30 foot front yard setback and 10 foot side yard setback. The majority of the new homes constructed within the City are placed at the 30 foot from yard setback and one of the 10 foot side yard setbacks. Basically, any expansion would have to take place in the rear yard. This application is not so unusual as to warrant a variance from either the front or side yard setback. Bluff Setback The Planning Commission approved the variance from the bluff protections setback, so the following section has been struck through T~.~ ~.~.cc~..~.+~+; .... ~ ...... +~ a..+ .......... ~, ................................ tho C .................................... tO S ~ ~ .. 3~ OtUS feet. Thus, a o,, v .......... v,~. Variance 86-7 In 1986, this property was granted a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback. (At that time, the site was a comer lot.) The subject property abutted both Lotus Trail and Willow Road right-of-way. Willow Road was actually a "paper street" because it existed only paper and was never built. The right-of-way was vacated in 1986. Neither the deck nor the garage were built according the setbacks required in the variance application. The deck/gazebo was to maintain a 20 foot front yard setback when the survey indicates that it is only 12.5 feet from the property line abutting Lotus Trail. The garage was to be constructed 5 feet from the property line abutting the Willow Road right-of-way, but Frostad Variance June 28, 1999 Page 7 the garage extends 5 feet into the right-of-way. This is the reason staff will require a survey '~fthe variances are approved and prior to the issuance of any building permits. The applicant can construct an addition within the required front yard setback ~ s~bac~, therefore, a hardship does not exist. Staff does not recommend approval. 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 this property. The request for the front yard setback variance will increase the non-conformity of the setback and will depart downward from variance granted in 1986. Furthermore, the applicant can construct an addition within the required setbacks without obtaining a variance from the front ~ yard setback requirements. bo 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 request 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. Frostad Variance June 28, 1999 Page 8 Finding: The proposed addition will certainly increase the value of the parcel significantly, staff not believe this is sole purpose of the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created. The application created the hardship, that is, an addition should be designed to maintain the required setbacks. The applicant can construct an addition within the required setbacks. eo 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 for the front yard setback will expand a nonconformity, when it is not necessary to make a reasonable use of the property. 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. However, the front yard setback variance will increase the nonconformity of the setback. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the request for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report." Frostad Variance June 28,1999 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application and Letter and Appeal Letter 2. Section 20-615, RSF District Requirements 3. Section 20-908, Yard Encroachments 4. Section 20-481, Shoreland Regulations 7. Section 20-72, Nonconforming Uses 8. Site Plan revised by staff 9. Property Owner List 10. Letter from Neighbor 11. Minutes from June 2, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting \\cfs [ \vol2\plan\ck\boa\frostad 99-3 var.doc ,3/05/9g 15:~G:Z5 GlZ-937-5739-> G12038115~ ~BlZ Pa~e' 5 CITY OF CHANHA88EN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHA88EN, MN 48517 (6t2) IL17.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION RECEIVED MAY 0 4 1999 CITY OF CH^NHASSEN APPLICANT:, TELEPHONE (Day time) (._~'~"~- OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehenslve Plan Amendment ~ C0ndltl~nal Use Permit ~ Intertm Ule Permit (~ ~ N0n.conformlng U~e Permlt --.-- Planneql Unit Development* ' Rezonlng · Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review Bite Plar~ Review' f eubdlvlllon' __ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Eeeernent~ Wetland Alteration Permlt , Zoning Appeal _ _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ~ Notlncatlon Sign ,,x; Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney ($B0 CUP/SPRNAC/VAPJWAP/Mote, ~nd Bounds, S400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ '~- ~'~ " m I Imm II _ n I A list of all properb' owner~ within 800 foot of tho boundarlea of tho proport~ must bo Included with the application. Building material samples must bo eubmlttod with elto plan revlewe. · Twonty41x full olzo folded copies of the plane must bo aubmltted, Including an BW' X 'tl" reduced copy of transparency for each plan ehaet. . Escrow will be required for other applicatlone through tho ~ovolopmont contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the eppmpdete fee shell be charged for each application. 83/85/99 15:46:44 612-937-5739-> 61ZB3Bl154 M612 Pa~e 6 LOCATION (~2'-'~- '7---c~_~ LE(3AL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES ~ NO REQUESTED ZONING ~ PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ~.r~ ~ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ~.'~P,c,~ ~ REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~- ~-~. '~-~.~r .;~,,% This apptlcatJon must be completed in full and be ~pewrltten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by ell Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before f~llng thl~ application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and prooedurel requlremant~ applicable to your application. A determlnatlon of completeness of the application shall be made within ten buslne~s days of appllcatlon ~ubmlttal. A written notice of application deflelsnoiss shall be mailed to the applicant wlthln ten business days of application. This I~ to oertlfy that I em making application for the described cation by the City and that I em responsible for complying with all Olty requirements with regard to thls request. This appllr~llon should be procet~ed In my name and I em the party whom the City should contaot regarding any matter pertaining to this application, I have a~checl e copy of proof of ownemhlp (either copy of Owner's DupIloate Certl~cate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I sm the authorized person to make this eppllcatlon and the fee owner has also ~lgned thle application. I will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for ~ubmlsslon of material and the progress of this applloatlon, I further understand that ~.ddltional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior f,o any authorization t0 prooeed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and'correot to the be~t of my ~;nowledga. The olty hereby notItlee the applicant that development review cannot bm oomplete~l within 80 clays due to publlc hearing requlrement~ and age~ the city Il noah/lng the applicant that the city requires an automatic eO day DeVelopment review shall be completed within 'i20 day~ unless additional review gen.~y~ravlew,--Therefore, extension for de/velop.ment review. De~elop ex'ten,lan, ,re ~,~ by the ,ppi,cent, Signature of Faa Owner Application Received on ~/'~'~ ~-~ Fee Pald '~ Data Oat~ The appllaant .hould oontsot staff for a copy of the staff repcA which will bo awll~ble on Friday prior to the meeting, If not contacted, a copy of the repo~'t will be mailed to the sppIIcar~'~ ,address, April 2 1, 1999 City of Chanhassen Planning Department 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED MAY 0 A 1999 CITY OF CH^NH^SSEN Re: Request for variance This is a lbrmal written request for a variance to proceed with planned construction of an addition to my home at 6728 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317. This letter is my attempt to address the general conditions for granting a variance as defined under Section 20.58 of the Chanhassen City Code. The code indicated that" A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or the city council only if all of the following criteria are met:" 1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. My need in getting this variance granted stems from several major problems with the property and my needed use of it. The current property has 40 exterior steps from the garage to the front door and has only two bedrooms. That was fine when it was just my wife and I but now I have my 84 year old grandfather living with us and he is having a lot of trouble going up the exterior stairs to the front door, not to mention the added flight of stairs inside that is required to reach his bedroom. My second problem with the 40 steps required to access the house is the fact that my wife is now pregnant and I can only imagine how difficult it will be for her to access the house during her 8th and 9th months as well as after the baby is born carrying him or her up the stairs. The plan that I am requesting variance for would allow me to construct a entrance to the property with only 20 exterior stairs and a lower level bedroom for my grandfather. 2) That the conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The property I own is unique in that it is the only property that has such a severe vertical distance between the driveway and the front door. 3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. I am purely trying to add the additional needed bedrooms and to help both my grandfather and my pregnant wife out by creating a easier entrance to my home. 4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. I won't try to argue that my wife getting pregnant would not constitute a "self created" hardship but I will admit that because this is our first, I had not thought through the potential problems this property may face me in the future when I bought it 3 years ago. (I was single at the time). I will point out though that I had no idea that my grandfather would end up living with me and that the property I purchased would create such a problem for him. 5) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 1 have discussed my plans with most of my neighbors and have not heard anything negative. If in fact someone perceived that the granting of this variance it would be a negative, I would be happy to discuss options that would help avoid problems perceived or otherwise. 6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The plans I have for the addition to my home would be off of the north end of the house which would not affect light or air supply of anyone. I do not see any way that my plan would create a public hazard or diminish property value in any way. In sunm~ary I am asking for a 10 foot front yard set back variance from Lotus Trail for the construction of a lower entrance and bedroom to my home. The section of my property that will be affected by the construction is the same part of the property that a variance was granted for on May 20, 1986 for the construction of a deck and gazebo. The gazebo will be removed in order to make room for my planned loxver entrance and bedroom. Hopefully each person reading this request will come to the same conclusion that I did. If the city saw fit to grant a variance on this property for the construction of a deck, I don't see why they would not grant one that would allow me to create a better home (access and bedrooms) for my wife, child and my grandfather. Thank you for you consideration. Todd Frostad 6728 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-470-8652 home 612-253-8336 work JUN-08-1999 20:40 DIGITAL RIUER, INC. 612 829 9871 P.02/02 999 Cindy Kirchoff City of Chanhassen Planing Department Re: Appeal of Planning Commission recommendations Dear Cindy, I would like to formally request an appeal oft.he Planning Commission decision to deny my request for Variance from the front and side yard setbacks for the construction of an addition. Upon review of the plans submitted and continued conversations with my architect, some concessions can be made in order to better conform to the setback requirements. The plans submitted proposed a 14ft addition to the rear of my property that I understand would require a variance. I also understand that by adjusting that plan to 13ft would insure conformity. So, that is what I would like to do. As to the front yard set back, the requested 12R addition to the front of my home would extend 10 ff into the 30ff fi'ont yard set back. After conversations with my architect a variance will still be needed in order to make room for the new front door. We could adjust the request for a variance so that we would extend only 8ft into the setback including Iff for eaves or overhangs. This would give me a total of gft for the placement of the front door. That probably sounds like a lot for a front door but my architect assures me that because we are building with log we need a little over 3ff for the door itsel£ and 2.5ff on either side of the door to insure structural integrity of the log addition. I will be able to present this with adjusted drawings illustrating the changes in the plan for the city council meeting later this month. Thank you for the help and consideration in this matter, Sincerely,~ Todd Frostad 6728 Lores Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 TOTAL P.02 § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) . Editor's note~--Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. i20 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-$9%-20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. '~RSF" SINGLE.FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 ZONING § 20-615 (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. 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 referenc~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: (1) 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. (2) 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 Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lota Where Frontage la Measured At 8etbaok Line (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 I Flag Lots Fro~ Lot Line : : /;' tOO/Lot Wldth--~ ~ ,I I I I ~ I (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: 'q/ a. 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 follows: 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 achieves 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. Sec. 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. 20-617m20-630. Reserved. ARTICI.F, XIII. 'rR-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 corner 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. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions ?ariance. s ~ranted 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 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 ZONING § 20-1 Retail sales means establishments engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Roadside stand means a stand located adjacent to public right-of-way for the sale of agricultural produce. Satellite dish means a combination of: (1) Antenna or dish antenna whose purpose is to receive communication or other signals from orbiting satellites and other extraterrestrial sources; (2) A low-noise amplifier (LNA) which is situated at the focal point of the receiving component and whose purpose is to magnify and transfer signals; and (3) A coaxial cable whose purpose is to carry the signals into the interior of the building. Satellite dish height means the height of the antenna or dish measured vertically from the highest point of the antenna or dish when positioned for operation, to ground level. Semipublic use means the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or roadway easement line; and, within shoreland areas. Setback also means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark. Sewage treatment system means a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in Chapter 19, Article IV of the City Code. Sewer system means pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. Shopping center means an integrated group of commercial establishments planned, devel- oped, and managed as a unit, with off-street parking facilities provided on-site. Shore impact zone means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of fifty (50) percent of the structure setback. ~ Shoreland means land located within the following distances from public waters: one thousand (1,000) feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. Supp. No. 9 1153 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. ~..eight of structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonres- idFfftial agricultural structures, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-482. Shoreland alterations. (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation alterations. (1) Ve, getation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treat- ment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conver- sion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil' and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cut-ting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraf~ access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: 1. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; 2. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; 3. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and 4. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 251, § 1, 4-8-96) Supp. No. 9 1196.2 § 20-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 26.60. Denial. Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-g6)), 12.15-86) Secs. 20-61--20-70. Reserved. , DMSION 4. NONCONFORMING USES* Sec. 20-71. Purpose, The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (21 To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any noncon- for~ing use, building, or structure; (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensificat/on, replacement, structural change, or relo- cation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (c) No nonconformlug use shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, only land uses which are permitted by this ordinance shall be allowed to be established. 'Editor's note-Section 2 of Ord. No. 165, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, amended Div. 4 in its entirety to read as set out in §§ 20-71-20.73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 contained §§ 20-71-20-78, which pertained to shnilar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. No. 163, § 1, adopted Feb. 24, 1992. Supp. No. 4 1164 Ill NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Request for a Variance APPLICANT: Todd Frostad LOCATION: 6728 Lotus Trail NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Todd Frostad, is requesting a 5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition, on property zoned RSF and located at 6728 Lotus Trail. 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 May 20, 1999. O Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® VIRGINIA KOEHNEN 7263 PONTIAC CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARBARA & MICHAEL COYLE 757 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG & MONICA KIFFMEYER 6710 HOPI ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL DOLS 730 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORYJ. CARLSON 760 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAN RUTLEDGE 6711 HOPI ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD L ROSSING 739 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFERY KING 767 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL WOITALLA 6712 HOPI ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAN HAZELTON 740 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD SPARTZ 777 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SIGNE THOMPSON 6721 HOPI ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICK E ROSSING 741 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEITH M. VOLK 790 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM MORENO 6727 HOPI ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID W. WORKMAN 745 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MELVIN HERRMANN 795 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY BARRETT 6741 HOPI ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GIL & SHERRI SIEVERS 746 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARRIE & BRIAN DETERMAN 800 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRIS/CYNTHIA ANDERSON 6680 LOTUS TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARI HAYDEN 749 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY HOPIA 760 CREE DRIVE CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 CHRIS ANDERSON 6680 LOTUS TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & KATHRYN JACOBY BRENDA & MICHAEL TERZICH 750 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTIN JENSEN 770 CREE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAULA VELTKAMP 6724 LOTUS TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BOB ROJINA 751 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM & SHARON WOLFE 6699 HOPi ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TODD FROSTAD 6728 LOTUS TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® D FROS~ LO~C~TRAIL ;.~FIASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW & NICOLE SIEMENS 6780 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 q CRONISTER LOTUS TRAIL NHASSEN MN 55317 BART ELLSON 6800 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 /EN OIEN LOTUS TRAIL -qHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J MOORE 6839 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 D G HOLUB MOHAWK DRIVE 4HASSEN MN 55317 JEAN LOPEZ 6859 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALD SENNES MOHAWK DRIVE ~HASSEN MN 55317 -'R LUSTIG MOHAWK DRIVE 4HASSEN MN 55317 3E JOHANSSON MOHAWK DRIVE 4HASSEN. MN 55317 · ELDON DEGLER MOHAWK DRIVE ~IHASSEN MN 55317 &LD SENNES MOHAWK DRIVE ~IHASSEN MN 55317 ; & JESSICA STOTTLER RINGO ROAD qHASSEN MN 55317 RECEIVED MAY ~ 1999 CITY OF (:;H.ANH,,A. SSE/~ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Deb Kind, Craig Pcterson, Kevin Joyce, and LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK~ A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK~ AND A BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION~ ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6728 LOTUS TRAIL~ TODD FROSTAD. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff?. Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission. If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Todd Frostad: Hello. My name is Todd Frostad. It sounds so impersonal when she... Basically I'm requesting the addition to my property. Anyone who's been down Lotus Trail...up 40 stairs... The stairs that are pointed out here are not the way they're set right now. It actually kind of stair steps down this way and there's actually 40 stairs between the driveway and the front door of the house as it sits right now. The objective with putting the addition is two fold. My wife is now 6 months pregnant with our first child which I guess is a self inflicted hardship, but a hardship nonetheless. And secondly, I have an 84 year old grandfather. The house right now is a two bedroom log home and so with one on the way and my grandfather using a second bedroom, I'm already one bedroom short. So the objective here was to build an addition out which would do two things. Create a lower entryway to the house and allow for the construction of a lower level bedroom and bathroom for my grandfather. The objective being that we could, under the rear addition build a bedroom about here for my grandfather and a bathroom here adjacent to what is now a laundry room right in here. And have this area, this external area, as I could go through the other plans if you want and I don't know what the process is here. To have an internal staircase instead of the external staircase. So 20 stairs inside and 20 stairs outside. And the front door would actually be right about here. And so if you look, if you can compare it where it sits on here. This is the proposedaddition right here. And this would basically, as we had requested it, we assumed that, and we didn't know at the time when we wrote the letter up, that this was actually not, we thought it was 20 feet and in fact it sOunds like it's 12 feet and something from the edge of where the gazebo is. And we'd actually take the gazebo out and give back some space to the city. You know and so in my mind improving the existing conformity and not eliminating it and just follow alignment with the deck. And then the back yard, just kind Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 of do whatever we need to. And in her letter back to me it said that you know the staff would consider approving a 4 foot rear yard setback with easement, or with how you'd phrase it? It had something to do with the awning. Or the overhang. Kirchoff: Oh, we have to measure the setback to the overhang. You aren't allowed any encroachment into a setback that has received a variance. Todd Frostad: All right so, but in your letter you said that the staff would consider approving it if it was a foot shorter instead of, this back here is 14 feet. If it was 13 feet it would pass. Is that kind of, so that's, we could obviously knock a foot off the plans. That would be fairly easy. And what I'm just trying to find out is what can we do with that front 12 when in reality I'm giving some footage back because I just want to get that lower entryway. And that's kind of the nuts and bolts. I'm trying to be flexible and not just have to go back and forth between the city every month with new letters or new adjustments. I spent $2,000 with an architect and I can give you the receipts and this is the best plan that we've come up with mutually between myself and the architects. And I'd hate to keep spending money with him and you know and delays and delays because you know in September I'll have a baby and she'll be lugging him or her up and down the stairs, plus my grandfather who spends most of the time in the summers at the lake, which isn't a big deal but winter will set in and he's back in the house pretty much full time. So I'm just trying to understand how we go about getting something approved within this commission's findings or objectives. So and if they say we can approve it based on 13 feet and 12 feet, then great. Then I'll draw plans for that. Or whatever the plans. Because all I know right now is that what, you know would I have to request a variance for which would be just about anything on this property. The limitation in the survey as you see it shows just the one lot, and if you guys remember last year. I don't know if you were on the planning commission, or actually three years ago now. The Tommy Byrnes project where he was going to move a property on. I actually own the whole adjacent lot and have with the county merged both properties. And so with where the garage is right now, to get the same square footage, I'd actually have to try to build over the garage and the vertical height would actually make it a four story building so my construction cost would be pretty outrageous so this is the most economical with the, to achieve the space that I could come up with. And so help. Peterson: Questions of the applicant. Based upon what the staff submitted back to you, it sounds like maybe, you didn't have enough time to review that or with the architect so specifically ask the question. Have you had the appropriate amount of time to respond to staff's recommendations that are presented here? Todd Frostad: I was out of town late last week so I basically didn't get a chance to review this until the end of last week and then with the holiday weekend, no. I haven't even had a chance to call the architect. Not to mention he charges me $150.00 an hour every time I call so. I know we can compress it. I mean if it's a foot offthe back, piece of cake. All I'm trying to do is get the front door here and this is, it's a log house. That's one of my other problems is because the way they construct the comers. I can't put windows and doors right up against the comer. I have to put it you know a foot and a half or two feet in. Just the way it, just construction limitations. The way he described it to me. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Peterson: Cindy, can you summarize succinctly what he'd have to do on his current plans presented before us tonight to change that to code? Kirchoff: The first thing he'd have to do, like I said in the staff report is reduce the size of the structure to, from 46 to 33 feet in depth. They do have the 12 foot in the front and then the 1 foot in the back. So they have to reduce it that size. There's no issue with the width at 20 feet. Todd Frostad: What you're basically, take it back to the edge of the house, not to the edge of the deck? Kirchoff.' Correct. Todd Frostad: And like I said, there's already structure them and I'm already giving some back so I'm just hoping because with the internal stairs I use up basically all this interior space, as this shows. Kind of in getting those stairs in there. And then the front door would be right here. So that's my limitation is I don't have a place to put a front door and stairs and a bedroom, all on the lower level, and bathroom. That's what I'm hoping to do here. And I'll tear down the gazebo. I'm just trying to. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Todd Frostad: How does the process go from here? Peterson: We'll do a public hearing now and then we'll discuss it among ourselves and make a recommendation to Council. Todd Frostad: Okay. Thank you. Peterson: May I have a motion and a second to open up to a public hearing please? Sidney moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Any thoughts on this one? Kind: I'm wondering if staff could speak to the deck versus house structure issue on the difference. Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Kirchoff: A living space is different from a deck in that a deck can encroach 5 feet into a setback whereas the living space, the addition would have to meet the 30 foot setback. Kind: The deck appears to be wider than 5 feet so it wouldn't have to be totally even with the house, is that right? Kirchoff: I'm not. Kind: Here's the deck. This appears to be more than 30 feet from the house. The current house. From the curb. This is more than 5 feet. So the addition would not have to go all the way back. Blackowiak: I like visuals. Kind: But the structure would have to come back to about that point, is that right? Kirchoff: According to that survey, the existing house is about 32 feet from the property line that abuts Lotus Trail. Kind: Okay. So they've got 2 more feet. Kirchoff.' Yes correct. Joyce: Is the real issue the expansion of the non-conformity? That's what we're really talking about here. And that's from 1986. The initial variance. Kirchoff: Well the variance application indicated that that deck is on the plan. The 12 foot deck would meet the 25 foot setback and the gazebo would not so they essentially got a variance for the gazebo and the landing portion of that deck. That gazebo could encroach 10 feet into the recorded setback, when in fact it's at 12 feet from the property line. Peterson: Other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I would like to sort of follow up I guess on what you said. I don't think I personally don't want to say no. We cannot do any kind of an addition. I think we like to be flexible. However it sounds as if, that he hasn't had a lot of time to talk to his architect and maybe, I mean I might suggest we table it until he has time to review it with his architect and maybe come in with an altemate plan or something. Otherwise I don't know if we can support, or ifI can support furthering a non-conformity. So it's kind of where I'm at right now, and I would not object to tabling this. Peterson: ...that Kate? Aanenson: Well, what you're telling him is that you're willing to look at something. Blackowiak: If it conforms. Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Aanenson: That's the direction you're going. Well he can make it conform. He's just not going to get his choice. He's agreed he can cut one foot off and make the back end. It's the front end that's the issue so what you're saying is can he live with 6? Can he live with 8? Because what he wants is 12 feet additional encroachment into the front yard setback. So that's what I want to make clear that he's going to be spending some time doing that and you still may not agree to that. I think if you told him you would give me, say make 6 work. I just want to make sure you're clear and that's the direction you may be sending. He may be. Blackowiak: But if it conforms, if he makes a conforming addition, we don't see it again is what you're saying? Aanenson: Well to make it conform he can't put the addition on. Blackowiak: He could put an addition on. Just not this addition. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: But if the addition that he proposes and brings to the city conforms, then we do not see it again, is that correct? Kirchoff: Correct. Aanenson: Correct. Burton: There'd be no variance, right? Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: So we would never see it. Okay. Todd Frostad: Can I make one additional comment? Peterson: Sure. Todd Frostad: The distance from where the house is and 2 feet... My problem is, the edge of the house is where the stairs would be coming in unless we can plan to keep 20 stairs inside a basically a...by' 20 structure. Get 20 vertical stairs so I would need more than 2 feet to get a door way...is my only issue. Peterson: Good, thank you. Other comments? I'll entertain a motion. We have some discussion going on so. Blackowiak: Sorry. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Peterson: That's all right. Blackowiak: I was trying to clarify where the door is. Peterson: Again, I ask for a motion. Joyce: Do you want to make a motion? Blackowiak: No, go ahead. Joyce: All right, I'll make the motion Planning Commission denies the request for a 12 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of the addition based upon the findings. And is this the same motion, we just combine the two? Kirchoff: There's two motions there. Joyce: Okay. That's my first motion. Conrad: I'd second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 12 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Second motion please. Joyce: Planning Commission approves the request for a variance #99-3 from the bluff protection setback for the construction of an addition within the required setbacks subject to conditions 1 through 4. Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the request for Variance #99-3 from the bluff protection setback for the construction of an addition within the required setbacks, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor at the time of building permit. Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 2. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Type III erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation has been restored. 4. The foundation shall be designed by a structural engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: The appeal from the decisions of this board, a council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the zoning administrator within four days after the date of the Board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available City Council meeting which is June 28th. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 578 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 1~000 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6570 CHANHASSEN ROAD~ CHARLES KLINGELHUTZ. Public Present: Name Address Loren & Deb Sposito Tom & Judy Newhouse Kate Wirth Richard Herr 40 Fox Hollow Drive 6521 Gray Fox Curve 6503 Gray Fox Curve 120 Fox Hollow Drive Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff?. Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Charles Klingelhutz: ...probably was originally farm property. I have more than sufficient land to build a garage and I had it surveyed. The surveyor said you can build a 35 by 37 garage. I have more than enough...more than enough space from Highway 101... Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Why can't you build it and attach it to your home? Charles Klingelhutz: I do not wish to attach it to my home. Conrad: But why not? It would be legal then and then you could get done what you'd like it. 7