Loading...
12 Variance Lot 42 Shore AcresCITY OF PC DATE: 6/16/99 CC DATE: 6/28/99 CASE#: 98-12 VAR By: Kirchoff:v STAFF I REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home and porch/deck. Lot 42, Shore Acres 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Bob and Brinn Witt 8572 Cardiff Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 914-9075 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: RSF, Single Family Residential Approximately 7,260 square feet N/A N: S: E: W: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential RD, Recreational Development Lake, Lake Riley RSF, Single-Family Residential RSF, Single-Family Residential Available to the site The site is a vacant, riparian lot. It is fairly flat with very little elevation change. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 0 ,~umm il' ,urt Lake Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On June 16, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request. By a vote of 5 to 1, the variance was denied. The majority of the commission staff's findings and recommendation. However, one commissioner felt a precedent had been set by the 1989 variance which permitted a 68 foot lakeshore setback. In 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a new single family home with a deck/porch extending into the lakeshore setback. Staff does not believe that a variance approved 10 years ago (which was given 5 extensions and the home was never constructed) should be utilized as justification for this request. Staff recommended denial of the 1989 request because the home footprint was too large for the site. This staff report is located in Attachment 8. This report has been updated. All new information is in bold type. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-481 (a) requires that all structures be setback seventy-five (75) feet from recreational development lakes (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND Shore Acres subdivision was platted in 1951 to accommodate cottages and summer homes. The 42 lots range from 24 to 50 feet in width and 130 to 230 feet in depth. Of the original 42 lots, only 6 remain as single lots. The subject property is a single lot. The remainder of the properties are assembled as contiguous lots to create a larger buildable area. Although these are lots of record, many property owners find it challenging to place a home on the lot. Therefore, many property owners requested variances from zoning ordinance requirements. The following table summarizes the variances granted on Lake Riley Blvd. TABLE 1 Variances Granted on Lake Riley Boulevard Variance # Address Type of Variance 98-12 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 10' front yard setback variance, 3' side yard setback variance, and 4' lakeshore setback variance (area, lot width, lake access variances) SUBJECT PROPERTY Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 3 98-6 97-11 96-9 93-10 93-8 92-9 92-2 91-16 90-7 89-13 89-1 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 30 & 31, Shore Acres 9225 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 31 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 11 and 12 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 38 and 39 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 29 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 17, 18, & 19 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 1 Rogers Add. 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 15 & 16 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 42 7' front yard setback variance for an addition 7' lakeshore variance w/the condition that only 23 % of the lot be impervious surface 3' east setback variance, 5' west setback variance, a 33' shoreland setback variance and a variance from the hard surface coverage. HOME NEVER CONSTRUCTED (See Variance #97-1) 4' shoreland setback variance for garage and home addition 9' shoreland setback and 8' front yard setback variance for home addition 36' shoreland setback variance for deck addition 14' front yard, 6.5' side yard, and a 7% hard coverage variance for a detached garage 7.5' side yard variance for a home addition 12' shoreland setback variance for a new home 4' side yard variance for home addition 14' front yard, 7' shoreland, and 4.5' side yard set back variances for a new home SUBJECT PROPERTY -- HOME NEVER CONSTRUCTED 87-8 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. 18' shoreland setback and lot area variances Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 4 86-1 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 34 & 35 40' shoreland setback variance for a new home Ten of the 14 variances were from the shoreland setback (Attachment 3). The following details the lots' specifics. TABLE 2 Comparison of Shoreland Variances Number Address Lot depth Lot width Total area Variance Purpose in sq. ft. Average 144' 12,919 Proposal 9247 147.6 avg. 77.5' street 7,260 14' home 24' lake 98_12 ........ 4, ,, 97-11 9225 and 187.5 avg. 70' street 16,175 7' home 9223 102' lake 96-9 9225 195' avg. 32.5' street 7,825 33' home 52' lake 93-10 9919 130' 95' street 13,000 4' addition 102' lake 93-8 9243 140' avg. 100' both 14,000 9' addition 92-9 9021 92.5 avg. 150' both 13,875 36' addition 90-7 9051 120' 130' both 15,600 12' home 89-1 9247 145' 80' street 7,250 7' home 25' lake 87-8 9005 100' avg. 140' both 13,500 18' home 86-1' 9235 180' avg. 50' street 20,700 40' home (peninsula lot) *west and south ~ortion of the lot have lake frontage This comparison was presented to show that each of these requests had situations that warranted relief. Not all variances are created equal. Lot 42, Shore Acres has had a long history. In 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved the following setbacks on this property: 14 foot front yard setback, 4.5 foot western side yard setback and 68 foot shoreland setback for the construction ora single family home on this property. A condition of approval was that a deck could encroach into the lakeshore setback but no porch or any enclosed structure is permitted with that setback. The original plans indicate an enclosed porch was proposed on the home on the lake elevation. In that same year, contamination was discovered on the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) required the lot to be decontaminated. This process took until 1992. Variances are only Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 5 valid for one (1) year so if the project has not been substantially completed, an extension must be requested and granted from the City Council. The City Council granted five (5) extensions to the property owner. This home was never constructed. On January 12, 1999, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals granted the following variances: a 12,515 sq. fi. variance from the 20,000 sq. fi. minimum lot area requirement for a riparian lot on a recreational development lake, a 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot minimum lot width requirement, a 51 foot variance from the 75 foot minimum lot width requirement for riparian lots on recreational development lakes for lake access, a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, a 3 foot variance from the westem 10 foot side yard setback and a 4 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals required the parcel to not exceed 25 percent of impervious surface. Staff supported the variances from the lot area and width requirements so the applicant would have a reasonable use of the property. In addition, staff recommended the applicant be able to install a dock on the site. The variances from the required setbacks were not supported by staff simply because the home footprint was too large for the site. Table 3 displays the history of the setbacks on Lot 42, Shore Acres. The original home was significantly smaller than both subsequent proposals. The original home was no closer than 20 feet to the front property line and 78 feet to Lake Riley. The variances granted in 1989 did not require the property owner to maintain either of these two setbacks. The applicant did not design the house for the size and shape of the lot. The footprint was excessively large. In 1999, the applicant redesigned a house print. This footprint still encroached into required setbacks so variances were granted. Originally, the applicant had shown that the home would maintain the 75 foot lakeshore setback and a 16 foot front yard setback. However, the Board wanted the home to be 20 feet from the property line abutting Lake Riley Boulevard for vehicle parking so a four foot variance was approved. The current proposal seeks permission to encroach even further into the lakeshore setback. TABLE 3 Setback History Lot 42, Shore Acres Setback RSF Original Variance Variance Current Requirements Requirements House #89-1 #98-12 Proposal Front 30 feet 20 feet 16 feet 20 feet 20 feet West Side 10 feet 6.8 feet 5.5 feet 7 feet 7 feet East Side 10 feet -2.5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Lake 75 feet 78 feet 68 feet 71 feet 61 feet Lot Area 25 % 23 % 34 % 25 % 25% Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 6 The current application seeks a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback. After a survey was completed it was determined that the home plan was too large for the parcel. The home extends 10 additional feet in the shoreland setback. Apparently, an error was made on the site plan submitted with Variance q98-12. Staff does not support this variance. The proposal should be designed to be in proportion to the lot shape and area. Approving an additional variance would depart from existing neighborhood standards. ANALYSIS This application is a request for a 14 foot variance to construct a single-family home with a screen porch and deck 61 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) level of Lake Riley. The home is 74 feet from the OHW. The proposed deck is 61 feet from the OHW level. The screen porch is 67 feet from the lake. The zoning ordinance requires a 75 foot lakeshore setback for structures on recreational development lakes. Section 20-58 states that a reasonable use must be granted to the property owner. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" is 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 zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home. A hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. If a hardship has been demonstrated, the property owner shall be granted a variance to offer relief. In this case, staff believes that the applicant can construct a single family home within the setbacks permitted by the Board. Relief was granted so this is an excessive request. The property has obvious limitations that should be reflected in the house design. Lake Shore Setback Lake Riley is a recreational development lake and is protected by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR has set standards for setbacks on protected waters, which have been adopted by the City of Chanhassen. The setback for sewered structures on recreational development lakes is 75 feet. These setbacks intend to maintain good water quality. All the water runoff from this lot is discharged into Lake Riley. The City has worked hard to be proactive in protecting water quality of its lakes and in doing so we have established favorable relationships with regulatory agencies, such as local watershed districts and the MN DNR. Chanhassen has earned the ability to regulate building permits without having duplicate reviews by other agencies. The City has also been working with lakeshore owners throughout the City, encouraging landscape plans that are "lake friendly" and stressing the importance of the lake impact zone. Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 7 The shoreland management ordinance requires that the City notify the DNR of any requested variances that deviate from the set standards from shorelands. Ceil Straus, Area Hydrologist, has prepared a memorandum recommending denial of the request (Attachment 4). 89-1 Variance The applicant has contended that the 1989 variance sets a precedent for this request. Staff believes that this is a new application and deserves separate consideration. The water quality of Lake Riley is important and is the basis for the setback. It is possible that this issue was not as important at the time this request was reviewed. Furthermore, staff did not support any of the variances. It was stated in the staff report that the property could be developed without variances. Overall, the home footprint is too large for the lot. The proposed house will be 1,750 square feet in addition to a finished basement. This is large for a 7,260 square foot lot. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals gave the applicants permission to encroach into 3 of the 4 required setbacks. Now the applicant is requesting an additional variance when the survey indicates that buildable area exists to the east of the garage. The home design is such that the garage protrudes further to Lake Riley Boulevard than the living space. This footprint is not appropriate for this parcel because the buildable area is limited. The home design should make the most of the site. Staff is aware that the applicant designed a home to suit their needs, however, any home on this parcel should be designed to make use of the buildable area rather than encroaching further into a setback that intends to protect the environmental health of the lake. An alternative home plan should be designed that suits the size and topography of the site as well as meets the setbacks approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Staff does not believe that a hardship has been demonstrated and does not support the request. 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: 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. Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 8 Finding: The literal enforcement of the 71 foot setback does not cause an undue hardship. The property can reasonably accommodate a home. Although this property is one-half the size of the required square footage of residential lot, staff believes that a home can be constructed within the setbacks and complement the character of the neighborhood. Although pre-existing standards exist in this area, granting requested variance would depart downward from these standards. It is possible that the adjacent homes could be demolished in the future so that larger homes could be built, and those new homes would have to meet the required lakeshore setback. 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 condition upon which this variance request is based are applicable to all lakeshore properties. The majority of all residential properties have to maintain the required setbacks. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: A home will increase the value of this property and a larger home will dramatically increase the value of the parcel. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created. The applicants desire to construct a large home on a small lot created the variance request. A smaller house pad would complement the lot and the neighborhood. This is not a neighborhood with large lake homes. It is clear that there is an alternative. 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 permit a home to be constructed into a required setback. The site is located on a lake and green space is important to maximize the absorbency and filtering of water before it enters the lake. 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. Witt Variance June 28, 1999 Page 9 Finding: The variance will permit a home to be located closer to the lake than what would normally be found in other lakeshore properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the request for the 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement for the construction of a single-family home and screen porch/deck based upon the findings presented in the staff report." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application and Appeal Letter 2. Section 20-481 (a), Shoreland Setbacks 3. Lake Riley Blvd. Variances form Lakeshore Setback 4. Memo from Ceil Straus dated June 9, 1999 5. Property Owners 6. Letter from Neighbor 7. Survey and Proposed Home Elevations 8. 89-1 Variance Staff Report 9. Letter from Kitty and Don Sitter dated June 23, 1999 10. Minutes from June 16, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting \\cfs I Xvol2\plan\ck\boa\witt 98-12 var 2.doe CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION MAY 1999 'ELEPHONE (Daytime) c~'/~.7/- d~ OWNER: '-"'~ ~'.- ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Temporary Sales Permit VaCation of ROW/Easements ._L~ariance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign Site Plan Review* Subdivision* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/W APIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract iOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 05/26/99 08:00 FAX 6124747447 JAIIES-JESSUP ~02 05/24/~ ~ON 14:4~ FAX 6124178tl~ ~CLEODUSA 'This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearty printed and must be a__~*~_ pank~:! by all information and plans taqLdre~ by applicable City Orc~inance provisions. Berate ~ing this a0plioatfon, you should confer w~ the PYanning DeparZment rD d~lna the specific; ordinance and procedura~ requkemehts applicable to your application. A determ'matlon of completeness of the appllc~tion shall be made wilhin ten business days of al:~k~ti~n submittal. A written nozJoe of a,oDra:~Ci0n defioien~'es shall be maJlect te the applicant within ten business ~lay~, nf app~cal~On_ Th~ ~S 10 certify 1hat I am making application for 1he described action by the City and th~ I am responsible for complying wlth a~'CAy ~ with regard to this request, This agplica.tion should be processed ia my name and I am the party whom l~e City should contact regarding any rna=~ pe¢.a!n~'to this =__,_np~lcat[r.~n, cop)' of Owners Duplicat~ CerC-c, ate of Title, AbStm~ of Title or pumhase agreement), or ! am the authodzed person to make ~is app~ and the fee owner h~s ~lso signed this aPl~[ca~n. keep mtl~elf info,.,,med o! the deadE.'~es for ~m~n ~ ~te~ a~ ~ pr~ of th~ ~~n. I ~r u~~ ~ a~on~l f~s may ~ ~a~ f~ ~u~g fee~, fe~ st~'~& e~. ~h ~ es~ ~r ~ any ~~ ~ ~ ~h ~ s~dy. ~e ~me~ s~ infomaibn I have ~bm~ am ~ a~ ~ [o ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ h...,-~-,~ .'--'-,-..~.s th.e appii,:e, nt that d~me~ m~w ~not ~ mm~ ~ 60 ~ d~ to ~ ~ ~mm~ ~ ~ ~. ~m, the ~ is no, rig ~ appl~nt that ~e ~ ~uima ~ ~e~ ~ ~y e~ ~ ~mont ~. ~~t ~ shall ~ ~mplet~ ~hin 120 da~ unl~ ~~1 ~ The appli=arft should contact staff for e copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeUng, If trot ¢=:aIta~ed, a oopy of the report well be rnalledte the applicant's address. 6-18-1999 3:2~PH FROM LTC INSURANCE ADV. 612 @ld 0969 P. 1 June 18,1999 City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Dr. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Attention: City plannner Cynthia Kirchoff Dear Ms Kirchoff, This letter is to serve in response to the June 16 meeting with the platming commission, of the property at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Shore Acres, lot 42. Tentative, land and home owners Brinn and Bob Witt at 8572 Cardiff La, in Eden Prairie MN, appeal the decision of the planning commission and we request a hearing with the City council on June 28, 1999. Sincerely, ~ ~ob Witt ZONING § 20-481 Tributary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer Triplex 300 200 150 Quad 375 250 190 (4) Addit/onal special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densit/es exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95) Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. f~?lacement of structures on When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, s~res and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. S~-uctures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Waters Lakes Natural environment --~ Recreational development Rivers Agricultural and tributary Sewage Structures Treatment Unsewered Sewered System 150 150 150 100 75 75 100 50 75 When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the setback ora proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance set forth in the above table or the setback of the existing structure. One (1) water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance often (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. (b) Additional structure setbacks, regardless of the classification of the waterbody. The following additional structure setbacks apply, Setback From: Setback (in feet) (1) Top of bluff; 30 (2) Unplatted cemetery; 50 (2) Right-of-way line of federal, state, 50 or county highway; and Supp. No. 8 1195 REWITT ': 120~""-.. ($ 6e 40'W.;'} ,, / --BE C N. GR~ Cart. ... i?..'i : OO'rLO r lO 2 DNR WATERS DATE: 6/9/99 STATE OF MINNESOTA Office Memorandum TO: Cindy Kirchoff, City of Chanhassen FROM: Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist PHONE: 651-772-7914 FAX: 651-772-7977 SUBJECT: Variance Request - 9247 Lake Riley (Lot 42, Shore Acres), Lake Riley (10-2), City of Chanhassen, Carver County I've reviewed the information regarding the above-reference variance request you faxed on 5/27/99. DNR recommends denial of the request. I do not see any demonstration of hardship to warrant a variance. They just got a variance for the house; they knew the limitations of the site. If the city chooses to approve this variance request, please advise me within 10 days of the final action and forward a copy of the findings of fact and minutes. Please call me if you have any questions. c: City of Chanhassen Shoreland File PROPOSAL: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE Request for a 14' Variance for Construction of Single Family Residence with Screened Porch APPLICANT: Brinn and Bob Witt LOCATION: 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Brinn and Bob Witt, are requesting a 14 foot variance to the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home and screened porch/deck on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 42, Shore Acres. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. make a recommendation to the City Council. The commission will then Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk'to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 3, 1999. Lake Riley Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5~.60® SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS C/O STEVE SEKELY 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD MADORE 381 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN & RENEE WILLIAMS 9291 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DALE KUTTER 301 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL & GAlL TERRY 400 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCO'I-I' & SUSAN BABCOCK 9351 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT D REBERTUS 320 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK 9251 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWIN DOMKE 1980 STANICH COURT MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 VALERIE DAHLEN 321 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 JAMES & PATRICIA DOLEJSI 9260 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON & CASEY ALEXANDER 6895 SAND RIDGE ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 ROBERT EVANS 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD PORTER 9261 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON & CASEY ALEXANDER JR. 9225 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAMELA GUYER 340 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RON FRIGSTAD 9270 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RON YTZEN 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN & PATRICIA SEKELY 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BARRY BERSHOW 9271 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FREDERICK POTTHOFF 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT MURRAY 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMIE HEILICHER 9280 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT JOHNSON 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT WIRTH 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG HALVERSON ..-------- 9283 KIOWA TR...~~ ,S~EN, MN 55317 PAUL OLSON 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN SHARKEY 380 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG & KATHRYN HALVERSON 9283 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOY A. SMITH 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 iLLE REMUS LAKE RILEY BLVD NHASSEN, MN 55317 ES F. JESSUP MINNEWASHTA WOODS ELSIOR, MN 55331 ALD W SITTER LAKE RILEY BLVD ~IHASSEN, MN 55317 VOGT ~HOREVIEW COURT ,,iHASSEN, MN 55317 IE & JOHN CADLE ;HOREVIEW COURT .JHASSEN, MN 55317 f MCMILLEN SUNNYVALE DRIVE !HASSEN, MN 55317 GREN BROS CON tAYZATA BLVD E _~ATA, MN 55391 & LAUREL SCHNABEL SUNNYVALE DRIVE IHASSEN, MN 55317 LAURA BOYD BEISE 3UNNYVALE DRIVE iHASSEN, MN 55317 slaqel ssejpp¥ Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use tempi, ate for 5~.60e DAVID O HANSEN 108 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD J CHADWICK 9530 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK MOKSNES 9381 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WENDY NELSON BERKLAND 9581 HIGHVlEW DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 PETER PEMRIC_.~~'~' 9251 KIO~5/A"FRAIL CH~NR-ASSEN, MN 55317 JOYCE E. KING 9391 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LAKEVIEW HILLS LLC 7630 WEST 78TH STREET BLOOMINGTON, MN 55439 TODD PORTER 9261 KIOWA T.~BAI[. CHANHA. A.A.A.~SEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHAN_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N~SEN~'"~ 690~_CLT~Y~c-'N T E R DRIVE CF1ANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOM EOVV_[~ERS C/O STEVE SEK.~.,-Y 341 DEERF-(3OT TRAIL CH..ANHA~SSEN, MN 55317 BARRY BERSHOW ..~-- 9271 KIOWA~RAIL'~ CH_~H..AS.SEN, MN 55317 RANDI BOYER ROBINSON 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAKE RILEY WOODS HOME. C/O PAUL J. MARTIN 9610 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG & KATHRYN HAL~V..E. RSON'- 9283 KIOWA T~IL-~'''~ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I_AURA M. COOPER 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM JANSEN 240 EASTWOOD COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN & RENEE..~--LflA'~"-- 9291 K I O_..~L CH.~NHASSEN, MN 55317 NORMAN GRANT JR 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM HENAK & K ALLERS 280 EASTWOOD COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT & SUSAN B_.:~~ 9351 KIOWA~A'E. CHANH..,H..,H..,H..,H..~N, MN 55317 DELBERT & NANCY SMITH 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID & KAREN DAOUST 9470 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER C. LILLIE 9355 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RAY LEWIS 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOANNE/RICHARD LAMETTRY 9490 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN 9361 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT H. PETERSON 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD. CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS MILLS 9510 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN BELL 9371 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NATHAN BERGELAND 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5'~.60e ;K HUNGELMANN 7 LAKE RILEY BLVD ~,NHASSEN, MN 55317 GORDON & CASEY A~.E-..XA'RD--'~ER 6895 SAN D~E~;~IE'ROAD EDE.~I..PR~IRIE, MN 55346 WILLIAM D. SAMUELSON 106 LAKEVIEW ROAD EAST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ;N GOULETT 9 LAKE RILEY BLVD .NHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON & CASEY A_L..EXAND'E'~JR. 9225 LAKE R_.J~D CHANt:iA-SSEN, MN 55317 STEVE & KATHLEEN M BURKE 9591 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HARD OLIN ~ LAKE RILEY BLVD · ,NHASSEN MN 55317 RON YTZEN 9227 I~KE~IrEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TIM ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 'ID A. DUHAIME i LAKE RILEY BLVD .NHASSEN. MN 55317 FREDERICK POTTH_..~..O~ 9231 LAKE~BIL--E~BLVD CH~blHA'SSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD P VOGEL 105 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .~1 DIRKS LAKE RILEY BLVD NHASSEN MN 55317 SCO'l-[' JOHNSON ..... ~'~-~ 9235 LAKE RILEY"BLVD C..~H.~..A_~IHAS'~'EN, MN 55317 MICHAEL & TERESA MONK 9671 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ~,ND SAPP/DIANE TAYLOR LAKE RILEY BLVD NHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL OLSON 9239 LAKE RILEY B. LVD CHANHASSEN;I'~N 55317 MICHAEL & LISA A REILLY 4421 DUNBERRY LANE EDINA, MN 55435 TIS KRIER LAKE RILEY BLVD. NHASSEN. MN 55317 JOY A. SMITH 9243 LAKE RILEY.BL'~ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CAROL & WILLIAM GRAY 50 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 G HASTINGS LAKE RILEY BLVD ,JHASSEN, MN 55317 LUCILLE REMUS_~' 9245 LAKE_..~L-..E~ BLVD .~EN, MN 55317 41S BAKER LAKE RILEY BLVD ~IHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES F. JESS~ -' 6350 MINNE~W-ASHTA WOODS EXCE~SI6~, MN 55331 IN DOMKE ~ STAN I~.J4~TOU BT :~NOOD, MN 55109 DONALD W SI~;F~ 9249 LAKE~Ri'LEY BLVD CH~A~HACSSEN, MN 55317 JUM- 8-99 TUE 8:08 AM AMDERSEN GONSULTING PAX NO. 612+272+2525 P,' 1 To: Cindy at the Planning Department City of Chanhassen Plmne 612-937-1900 x117 Fax 612-937-5739 From: Fred Potthoff 9231 Lake Riley Bird Chanhassen MN 55317-8654 ltome Phone 612-445-0176 Work Pho,'m 612-372-2765 I support givitxg the Witt, a variance for fl-reit property at the end of Lake Riley Boulevard. 'lite lot had a tmme on it once before. Now tt~e lot is empty. It has always been a x~.arrow lot. I would like to see a home built there again. Yours truly, Fred Potthoff IRON MON. UNDER BITUMINOUS WOOD WALL--~ 875.2 872.0 872,8 873. I · EDGE OF E 873.5 x 873.2 x 872.5 x 872.7 ,'-, \ L~ 870.4 869.6 x 871.9 871.5 870.3 x 867.7 I--, o o FND IRON 865.4 865.4 //"1'7- 864 LAKE ELEVATION OF WA 864.,3 MAY 14. 1999= '/'ER 864.$ 'STONE WALL LAKE HIL y 9g-IOI B67.2 ._ · ~/,~ ~0N 865~ °¢'3 ' IRDINARY HIGH WATER LINE 864.4 872..xt GW 871.1 x 871.8 Lot  NO~ I.) !/~0 .87,., ~a~,~ 2.) 3 3.) 870.7 871.2 GARAG~ FLOOR ELEV. x 871.6 870.5 x 868.1 / /"~ -r- L.L/I 457/19 E I1~ ~21, ~28 99101001.DWG OBP ,4 .I ./- , BE. I.) We hereby certify .th representotion of o the Iond obove desc oll buildings, if ony, Dated this 20th day SUNDEA-A~D SURVE' ~/' John K. Borne PROPOSED HOME FRONT ELEVATION (- t, iTY OF DATE: Feb. 27, 1989 C.C. DATE: CASE NO:Oariance Prepared by: Hanson/v~' i II STAFF REPORT PROPDSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PRESENT ZONING: Variance for Construction of a Single Famil~'~Residen~ Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage James & Mary Ellen Jessup 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley Boulevard l~t.~ ~:,. ,~..... :./:....... , ~::. - . . RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: .17 acres (7,500 + s.f.) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING .AND LAND USE: PUD-R; residential single family S- RD; Lake Riley E- RSF; residential single family W- RSF; residential single family WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC.: Site slopes to lake 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential bJ RSF A2' PU RD 8600 8700 88O0 89O0 , 9OOO .... 9100 .... 9200 F LAKE RILEY .... 9300 9400 9500 · . 9600 PONO 9700 9800:0 I00 200 Jessup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 2 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES RSF Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Description Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance Front Setback 30' 20' -10' 20' -10' Side (east) 10' 6.8' - 3.2' 5' - 5' Side (west) K0' -2.5' -12.5' 1' - 9' Rear 75' 78' + 3' 61' -14' Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9% Coverage The applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set- back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864.5. The survey of the property does not include the elevation so the exact location of the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to encroach into the setback 14 feet. The side setback (west) is requested to be 1 foot. The existing garage on the property is located 2.- feet off the property. The other side setback (east) is presently 6.8 feet and the proposal is for this to be 5 feet at the garage and 10 feet along the side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also, the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor- ners of the house would be out of the setback. The front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and this is con- sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard and this neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car to park in the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck and porch would bring this into compliance with code require- ments. The lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conforraance with this requirement. -essup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 3 The zoning code provides five findings that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals must make in order to grant the variance request. These criteria and staff analysis are as follows: A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not preclude use of the property, however, enforcement of the front set- back would require a setback which is not characteristic of the homes e~st of this lot on the lake side of Lake Riley Boulevard. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. I~pecial conditions are that this lot is narrower and smaller than would be required under the present codes if it were to be created now. The question is can the lot be developed and comply with code requirements, and the answer is yes, the lot could be developed but not with a home of the size that is proposed. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The property could be developed without the variances although the house would have to have a smaller foot print. ~he granting of the front yard variance allows some flexi- bility and is in keeping with the lots to the east. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. The home to be built is a new home and it is difficult to say that non-compliance with the setbacks is not self- imposed. The present zoning was in effect when the owners purchased the property and there has been no change in requirements. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. The front setback is in character. Some side yard setbacks may be appropriate but a 90% reduction on the side and 50% on the other indicates the structure is simply to large for the site. This is further noted by the proposed lot -essup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 4 coverage of 34% versus the code requirement of 25%. The encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not something the city has allowed except in unique areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals not approve the variances as proposed based on findings that the request does not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff recommends the Board adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed variances for Variance Request #89-1, James Jessup, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side yard setbacks, rear yard setback and maximum lot cover of the Oity Code based on the following findings: Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac- tical difficulty. The variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size and design of the proposed structures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated February 20, 1989. 2. Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989 Application. 3. Existing plot plan. 4. Proposed plot plan. RAJLROAO TIE ~ RETAINING WALL ~,~ I I GARAG WEST LINE OF' THE S,E, I/4 OF: SECTION 24, T. Il6 N. R25W., ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT OF SHORE ACRES ., "::'.' ?' ~~~~ / "'i XISTING HOUSE / / ACRES (,'err/r/core CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: To the front, rear, and side yard setback requirements of the RSF zoning district for the construction of a new single family residence. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 42, "SHORE ACRES", according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota 3. Conditions. The variance is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the city Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any ~n--~B-~ structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley_. The building plot plan shall show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine actual setback. The building plot plan sh.=_!l be prepared by a registered surveyor. The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures. 3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building permit to assure compliance with plans presented with variance. 4. The site plan dated March 6, 1991, Zoning Variance No. 89-1, is the approved plan. 5. Front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line. 03/28/91 e deck. Rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the 7. West setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure. 8. East setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: ~5{m~'.uL'~.~. ;1_, 1991. CITY OF CHANHASSEN , Donhld J. ~i6~,'May~r AND Don Ashworth, STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~.~. day of ~.~,~.~ , 1991, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and by Don AshwortW, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. 3460 Washington Drive, Suite 202 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 (612) 456-9539 RNK:srn NOTARY PUBLIC, . t"':;~,~E-~OTA ~ CARVER COU~;TY ~ ~ ~mml~ ~res 1~1~91 Date: To: From: 6-23 -99 Chanhassen City Council Kitty and Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Witt 14 foot Variance Request We stand opposed to the granting of this variance as requested. Back ia January, we supported the granting of enough variances (six in total were actually granted) to make it a buildable 10t. There is no h~rdship established to support the granting of yet another variance, other titan the self created hardship of not wanting to make further design modifications. There is additional buildable space within the confines of the current variances which is unused w~th their current design, so there is no justification to grant this additional variance request. In the Pla~n!ng Commission meeting last week, the issue was raised regarding the variauees that were granted back in 1989, What was granted ten years ago to someone else (with five ext~.~sions) and never built, is immaterial for this decision. Decisions need to be based on current facts and knowledge. Also, in 1989 there were no variances granted towards the lake side other than a 7 foot variance for a deck. A fur'd~er condition of that variance was that it could never be enclosed or have a roof over it at any time in the future. Witts are currently asking for a 14 foot variance toward the lake for an enclosed room with a roof, Please help us protect Lake Riley and deny this variance request. Thank you for listening to our concerns, Respeetgully, Kitty and Don Sitter Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 14 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SCREENED PORCH/DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 42~ SHORE ACRES~ BRINN AND BOB WITT. Public Present: Name Address Bob & Brinn M. Witt Don Sitter 8572 Cardiff Lane #2, Eden Prairie 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Could you take a couple seconds Cindy and just kind of point out where you feel as though it could move. Kirchoff: Sure. The 74 foot, or...that the Board of Adjustments approved back in...and the applicant would like to locate a screened porch and deck right here so it encroaches into the shoreland setback. They have buildable area...garage that a living space could be... Peterson: You're saying move what is now right at 77 feet, move that living area back in that kind of comer where the garage is and then put the deck where the current living quarters are. Kirchoff: Basically staff believes that they should utilize the buildable area that has been given to them by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals rather than requesting an additional 10 feet. Peterson: Other questions of staff?. Kind: I have a setback question and encroachment. Decks are allowed to encroach 5 feet into setbacks. Is that tree when a variance has been granted or? Kirchoff: Decks are allowed to encroach into a required front, side or rear setback when a variance has been granted. They are not allowed to encroach into a lakeshore setback or wetland setback. Kind: Ever? Kirchoff: No. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Riparian lot size is 20,000 square feet so all of these lots are, or most of this neighborhood is far below that, right? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kirchoff: Correct. Conrad: That's why the 12,000 foot variance was granted. It was a neighborhood issue. Kirchoff: Correct, and it is a lot of record so staff felt a variance would be appropriate. It was platted in 1951 when we didn't have the required area for lakeshore lots. Aanenson: Just to clarify that, we did support the variance. Some variances. To make the lot buildable some variances had to be given. And that's our position that relief was granted. Not every home is going to fit on this lot so we felt that based on the first time through, reasonable use of the lot was given and while there is, this may not be their first choice for the configuration of the home, there is reasonable use based on the variances that were granted. Conrad: Typical lot size in this neighborhood might be? Kirchoff: It's larger than 7,000 square feet. Probably. Conrad: So the lots are big? Kirchoff: Actually a lot of the lots are joined together. They'll have two lots for one home. That's pretty typical. Conrad: So when I look at the plat, or not the plat. When I look at the neighborhood and all the lot lines here, that doesn't really mean that the houses are line, are any of those lines? Aanenson: Correct. We can maybe put that up there. We can show you the variances that were granted in that. Kirchoff: Staff did include in the packet a plat of the shore acres subdivision and there was lines drawn showing the home. For instance this lot right here, or address 9119 is two lots. Whereas this subject property is only one lot. There are a few other properties that have, are only one lot. This parcel has two, so they just joined two lots together in order to build a larger home. Conrad: So are those the square footages you've written in on those? Kirchoff: Those are addresses. Conrad: So what would be a typical square footage for a lot in this neighborhood? I see the lots with variances. They're anywhere between, it looks like 7,000 and 14,000. Aanenson: It's on page 3. Lot area on page 3. Conrad: Lots with variances. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Aanenson: Right, but I would say that's probably pretty close to average. 15,000 would probably be the. Conrad: The lot we're looking at tonight is fairly small. Aanenson: Right. That's why we're saying that size home that's in that area doesn't fit on this lot. That's our position. Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, give your name and address please. Bob Witt: Well I'll put a few things down here as well too. My name's Bob Witt and I'm at 8572 Cardiff Lane in Eden Prairie temporarily. Hopefully temporarily. Very frustrating situation. I don't know if you know all, everything behind it but I guess we found that when we did, when the survey was done that there was a 10 foot error. The plans themselves haven't changed since we came and presented the plans last time to the other group that was here. The only thing that has changed is when we did come they asked if it would be okay if we pushed the house back 4 feet from the front, and we thought that would be okay. When we did that we had to pull the house in another 2 feet on the side. We're sitting with about 800 feet of living area on the main level, which makes for a really small house. We understand that the lot is a very difficult to build on and it is very small. One of the things that was impressed on us was that we needed to keep it within a 25% impervious surface. We've been able to do that. I think if we moved up to putting, you know actually went and redesigned the whole house again and started by putting into, I don't know if you can see that again but into that building area that they were talking about, we'd probably go past that impervious surface area if we put a porch on the back because that would again, have more lot coverage there. That's why we kind of left that open. One of the things was, as we were going through the designing of the house, was that we wanted to keep it within that 25% and we've been able to accomplish that, even with the error, whatever, we still can't figure out where that came from. It had to come from the architect. We're still staying within the 25% impervious surface. The previous plan that was approved on there by the, for the landowner was somewhere in the neighborhood of about 36% impervious surface and he was in that particular area and that was Jim Jessup who owns the property right now. And we're not really, we initially asked for 10 feet which would bring us to 61 feet. What we're really trying to do is get to the point where we can build this house on this property without having to go back and redesign. We're $15,000.00 and 9 months into this and an extreme amount of frustration at this point. But what we'd like to do is, and I don't know if this will show up on here either. Yeah, I guess it will. This shows the main level of the house and when you're looking at that 61 feet, you're seeing this portion of the deck over that and that's 4 feet that you're looking at right there and so if we were to take that 4 feet off of the deck, that would still leave us with a porch and a reasonable deck. It wouldn't be anymore than 10 feet which is a 10 x 10 deck, which is as you know, everything on this house is extremely small. And our proposal is, and what we're really asking for is if we could, if we compromised and took 4 feet off of the deck and were able to move the house on the lot, whether it would be forward or however you would want to, you know you would like us to move it, we're happy to do that. And then what we'd be asking for is the same consideration that was given to Jim Jessup and this is his plan that 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 was approved and that was approved in 1991 and it says, his front setback was 16 feet so he was 16 feet from the front. His lakeshore setback was 68 feet so we're not even quite asking for that. We're asking for, if we went 16 in the front, we'd be at 69 in the back. And that's the consideration that Jim got and that was approved. And we'd like to see that same consideration given to us. Again, it is really frustrating. We hate to even be back asking for this thing. We'd like to be in the, you know going out there and looking at a frame being built and things like that but we find ourselves back here again and it's frustrating for everybody I know. But that's really all I have. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer anything I can answer. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? If you, let me ask this of Kate and Cindy first. If we were to grant a variance on the impervious surface is that, is staff generally more amenable to that happening versus the setback variance? It's an option. Aanenson: Trading one thing for another, you know. Peterson: Any other questions? Motion and second for a public hearing. Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the planning commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Don Sitter: Hello, my name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm the adjacent property owner just to the west of this. This is, this has been a little bit ora frustrating project. I think the Witt's have worked really hard. They've been very cooperative in their attitudes so I'd really like to see them be able to build a house here. It's an ugly lot. It's full of weeds and it's been a hassle for the last, oh going on 13 years now so we'd sure like to see this thing resolved. But I'm a little concerned. Right now there's a 10 foot encroachment I guess on the variances that they were given and Bob and Brinn are willing to take off4 feet but that still leaves us with a 6 foot. Now I don't know if maybe you understood, I think what Bob is asking is to slide the whole house back closer to the road. Is that what you're, okay. So I think we're working with a little bit of soft numbers here and I'm not too sure exactly what we're going for. But I feel like, as the neighbors we supported them on their last variance request. We gave them enough variances so that they could build their house. I would like to see you stand on those variances and I'm sorry. I don't mean to make this even more of a problem but ! can't support going any closer to the lake and I certainly can't support going any closer to the road. They're at 20 feet now and if they go any closer to the road, this is a mm around by the way. I'm not sure if you know but it's a very, very small mm around at the end of the road and if there's any kind of large vehicles, they're going to be hanging out over into the street so that would make it difficult for the neighborhood. As nice as the Witt's have been, we've got to make sure we're looking at this not as nice people but what is the house, is it right for the lot that it's on. And I know it's going to throw them into a total redesign if they have to take that square foot off the front and stick it into that open comer, but boy as much as I'd like to see this happen, I would really like to see that the Board here keep it within the variances that have already been granted. It is now a Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 buildable lot by the variances granted and I'd like to recommend that we keep them within those variances. Thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, motion to close. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Anyone care to offer their respective thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman? I did go take a look at the site and very small and quite beautiful. The view is very nice and right now it's in a state of disrepair as far as the weeds and that sort of thing so it would be great to see a house there. If the applicant could figure out a way to get a house up. Peterson: How do you feel about the variance? Kind: I think it's our job as a commission to uphold the variances the way they are. Peterson: Other comments? Questions? Discussion? Conrad: Two quick ones. Or one. I think the lake setback is real important to maintain a few feet here or there doesn't matter but 14 feet does. There is buildable land and I think as long as we know that there's buildable land, they can design to fit with the previous variances granted. Peterson: Comments? Burton: Yeah, it does kind of bother me that they were... Blackowiak: To piggy back on that. I understand that variances were granted at one point in time and, but things change. As we learn more about water quality and things like that, I think it's important like Ladd said to respect those lake setbacks and maybe in 1989 we didn't know as much as we know now about the importance of keeping things back from the lake so what happened in the past doesn't always make it right so I would agree with staffand say that there is a buildable lot and we need to respect those lake variances especially. And 20 feet from the street as is, that's close. I mean that's, people are going to be looking in your windows so. I sympathize with you if your architect made a mistake on the footage, then he's the one you should be talking to. Peterson: Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request for a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement for the construction of a single family home and screen porch/deck based on the findings presented in the staff report. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request for a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement for the construction of a single family home and screen porch/deck based on the findings presented in the staff report. Ail voted in favor, except Burton who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Peterson: Your comment on the nay. Burton: Same comments. I think that it seems unfair that it was okay in 1989...front setback and ...shoreland setback and now it's not...the history and that but it just seems that it was close enough in time and they had to come back five times to get...basically approved so that's the basis. Peterson: With this decision, a notation to the parties. A City Council member or 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 this board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available City Council agenda which is? Kirchoff: June 28th. Peterson: The 28th, okay. So, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 44,692 SQ. FT. TWO STORY TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED STORAGE BUILDING AND A 40 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT THE ESTABLISHED 30 FOOT SETBACK ON 3.84 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND PARK DRIVE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, MINNESOTA MINI- STORAGE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of Bob? Conrad: So the rebuilding would occur exactly where the footprint is today? Generous: Yes. They'd meet that wall. Aanenson: There was some additional taking with Highway 5's frontage too. After the building was put in place so. 8