8 Setback Var/Garage/Woitalla
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
f
PC DATE: 4/5/00
-
CCDATE: 4/24/00
REVIEW DEADLINE: 4/25/00
STAFF REPORT
By: Generous:v
PROPOSAL:
Request for an 18.5 foot variance &om the 30 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of a garage addition.
-
;:II"
:(
)
]
L.
L
t
LOCA nON:
6712 Hopi Road
APPLICANT:
Michael Woitalla
6712 Hopi Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Single Family Residential
\
ACREAGE:
16,000 sq. ft.
DENSITY:
N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
N: RSF, Single Family Residential
S: RSF, Single Family Residential
E: RSF, Single Family Residential
W: RSF, Single Family Residential
t
-
~
L.J
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site
-
PHYSICAL CHARACI'ER:
A single family home with an attached two-stall garage exits
on the site.
-
')
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Low Density Residential
---
I I
I I I I
I
Woitalla Variance #00-3
April 5, 2000
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-615 (5) of the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot rear yard setback for properties
zoned RSF (Attachment 2).
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 3).
Section 20-72 (e) states that removal or destruction of a non-conforming structure to the extent of
more than 50 percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city,
shall terminate the right to continue the nonconforming structure (Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
The property is located in Carver Beach and consists of eight lots, which are each 20 feet wide by
100 feet deep. This home was constructed in 1946 prior to the 1972 zoning ordinance. The
existing 24.3 foot by 23.5 foot attached garage does not meet the 30 foot rear yard setback
currently required by ordinance. In 1976, fire damage was repaired on the home. Neither the
house nor the garage meets the required 30 foot rear setback.
The subject property is 16,000 sq. ft. It is 160 feet in width (90 feet required) and 100 feet in
depth (125 feet required). No variance is required for development on lots that meet at least 75
percent of the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The table displays the setbacks
maintained by the existing home.
(It should be noted that upon inspection of the site, staff saw that a semi-trailer container (Mobile
Space Storage Systems) is stored in the southeast portion of the yard. City ordinance, section 20-
909, prohibits such storage. The applicant must remove this container from the site.)
TABLEt
Setbacks For 6712 Hopi Road
Setback Distance Required Distance Maintained
FrontIHopi Road 30 feet Garage: 62.5 feet
Home: 52.8 feet
Side 10 feet North: 38.8 feet
South: 63.5 feet
Rear 30 feet 12.1 feet
The applicant would now like to reconstruct the garage and expand the garage by six feet. The
addition is proposed to increase the nonconforming rear yard down to approximately 11.5 feet.
Staff had advised the applicant that they could reconstruct the existing garage within the existing
footprint or build a detached garage that would comply with setback requirements.
Woitalla Variance #00-3
April 5, 2000
Page 3
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of a garage addition. The existing garage was constructed at a 12.1 foot rear yard
setback. The applicant seeks to increase the nonconforming setback through a six foot expansion
of the garage.
The applicant, as part of the rebuilding of the garage, must have a structural engineer design the
foundation and attachment details for precast planking. If the variance is granted, the applicant
would also have to provide the city with a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan.
Regardless of whether the variance is approved or not, or as part of construction on the site, the
driveway shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete as required by city code.
Site Characteristics
The topography of the site does not limit the buildable area to the extent a variance is needed to
construct a garage. The applicant could reconstruct the existing garage within the existing
footprint, extend the garage toward the street, or build a detached garage that would comply with
setback requirements without the need for a variance. While the applicant states that a detached
garage would be "a great inconvenience," it is possible to construct a garage that complies with
ordinance. If the applicant were to expand the existing garage, he could extend it to the
northeast, creating a double deep garage stall, which would comply with ordinance requirements.
Permitted Use
This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. A single family home can be legally
constructed on the site. The zoning ordinance (Section 20-1124 (2) f) requires two parking
spaces, both of which shall be completely enclosed for single family dwellings. The applicant is
entitled to construct a 2-stall garage on the site, not a 3-stall as requested. Currently, a single
family dwelling with two covered parking spaces is present on the site.
Reasonable Use
The buildable area (5,600 sq. ft. or 40 feet by 140 feet) is not constrained by the literal
enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The required setbacks do not limit the buildable area to
make it impossible to construct a garage without a variance. The property owner has the
opportunity to make a reasonable use of the site without any variances. A reasonable use is
defined as the use made bv a maioritv of comparable propertv within 500 feet. A "use" can be
defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended
or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF
zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home with a two-stall garage. The owner has
a reasonable use of the property.
Woitalla Variance #00-3
April 5,2000
Page 4
A variance is granted when a hardship is present. That is, the property owner cannot make a
reasonable use of the site without relief from the ordinance. In this instance, the owner can
construct a garage within the buildable area.
Nonconforming Setback
The existing garage maintains a nonconforming 12.1 foot rear yard setback. The zoning
ordinance permits a nonconforming structure to be maintained or repaired but only to 50 percent
of its value. It also states that a nonconformity shall not be increased. Specifically, the ordinance
states 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. The
proposed garage addition does not meet the required 30 foot rear yard setback and will expand
the garage area at the nonconforming setback.
Staff believes that a variance should not be granted because it will increase the nonconformity of
the setback. It is not reasonable to assume that since the existing garage maintains a 12.1 foot
setback, that a variance will or should be granted. This addition should lessen the nonconformity
of the setback, not increase it.
Neighborhood Setbacks
Staff surveyed city records to determine if rear yard setback variances had been granted in the
area. This survey turned up one case, Variance #99-10, located at 6870 Nez Perce Drive, which
approved an 11 foot rear setback variance from the 30 foot rear setback to permit a house
addition 19 feet from the property line. The existing house was located 16.2 feet from the rear
property line. The original request from the applicant was for a 19 foot variance.
Yard Encroachments
In cases where a variance is granted, the zoning ordinance does not permit any encroachments
into the setback such as eaves or bay windows. If a variance is granted, the setback shall be
measured from the edge of the eave of the garage.
Staff recommends denial of the 18.5-foot variance request because the applicant has not
demonstrated a hardship and reconstruction or expansion ofthe garage could be constructed to
comply with ordinance.
FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they fmd the following facts:
a. 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
Woitalla Variance #00-3
April 5, 2000
Page 5
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 &om them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, however, the
location of the home dictates where an addition can be placed. Approving the variance will
increase the nonconformity of the setback and depart downward &om pre-existing
standards. A detached garage could be constructed that would comply with setback
requirements without the need for a variance if the applicant desires additional storage
space. The applicant could reconstruct the existing garage within the existing footprint or
expand the garage toward the street without a variance.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
in the RSF zoning district.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The expansion of the garage will increase the value of the property, however,
staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The home was constructed prior to the ordinance, so the hardship is not entirely
self-created. However, the fact that the applicant wishes to construct a 3-stall garage instead
of reconstructing the existing garage, is a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. However, the
granting of the variance will allow the expansion of a nonconformity, which could
contribute to a downward deviation of standards in the neighborhood.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply oflight 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.
Woitalla Variance #00-3
April 5,2000
Page 6
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,
permitting the 18.5 foot variance would increase the nonconformity of the setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed variance on AprilS, 2000.
The Planning Commission voted three for and two against a motion recommending approval of the
variance request subject to the following conditions:
1. Setback shall be measured from the eves.
2. The applicant must provide the City with a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control
plan.
3. No driveway shall be provided to the lower level of the garage.
4. The applicant shall provide a tree preservation plan.
The Planning Commission found that 1) due to site topography, 2) due to the existing house
configuration, and 3) due to the need to preserve the stand of pines, there exists a hardship in the
location of the garage.
A vote ofless than three quarters of~e Planning Commission members present shall serve as a
recommendation to City Council, who shall then make the final determination of the variance
request within thirty days after receipt of the board's action.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and planning staff are on opposite sides on this issue. We therefore
provide both options for City Council.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Variance #00-3 for an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard
setback for the construction of a garage expansion at 6712 Hopi Drive subject to the following
conditions:
1. Setback shall be measured from the eaves.
2. The applicant must provide the City with a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control
plan.
3. No driveway shall be provided to the lower level of the garage.
Woitalla Variance #00-3
AprilS, 2000
Page 7
4. The applicant shall provide a tree preservation plan.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies Variance #00-3 requesting an 18.5 foot variance &om the 30 foot rear
yard setback for the construction of a garage expansion based upon the staff report and the
following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant could reconstruct/repair the existing garage without a variance.
3. Sufficient buildable area exists on the site at the required setbacks to permit the construction of
a garage."
A IT ACHMENTS
1. Application and Letter
2. Section 20-615, RSF District Requirements
3. Section 20-72, Nonconforming Uses and Structures
4. Lot Survey
5. Public hearing notice and property owners list
6. Planning Commission Minutes of 4/5/00
g:\planlbglVar.00-3 Woitalla.doc
\.1, , '\' . ,., .~L
Î' ;ì.d-,_~ ' '....... "'J
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
()b'3
APPUCANT:
f OWNER: :s A (Y) £
ADDRESS:
5" ·7
(¿S if: reA\
Itobh:e. .J TELEPHONE:
'I7t( .5"6 'I A
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
- Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
.~
- Interim Use Permit / )( /Variance ~ 7;¿;
_ Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Atteration Permit .
-
_ Planned Unit Development· _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
- Site Plan Review· @Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost··
, ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
- Subdivision· TOTALFEE~r
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundari,es of the property must be Included with the
application. f)1~~ !vtJê: Û-l-<¡ S41'1 ¿,-ST" .
Building mate~l.a~ust be sUb~site plan reviews.. .' /¿
/" / /" / ..,,' .,'
-" / ./ / ,.' -
"Twenty.-slx full size ~ copl~$-Of the plans'must be s;,.bmltted, IncludIng an S%" X 11 n re<jueel1coPY of
tra~Jparency fO/h PI/eèt. C....../ // /./.......---- /
/./Escrow will ~irêd for other applications through the d~~;~t. contract
~OTE . When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
f REASON FOR THIS REQUEST -) f ~
YES
NO
A#A c ~~C'I
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer w~h the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and i am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that add~ional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensiOJ1S are approved by the applicant.
V -7!{¡~tfJ 4 ~0¿~;U¡
(" Signature o~Ap ~can)7. I / ! r I-IJd
'f/7âdr///4' ~
Signature of Feé Owner
7/..,r! Irl-c( ~
Application Received on '1 """;;'! ,"'0 Fee Paid . ;> Receipt No.
The appßcant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
/()-//-çç
Date
/()- /1- ÇC;
Date
Feb. 8,2000
To Whom it may concern,
Scope of Work:
Remove existing garage, which is highlighted in yellow. Install new basement garage
footings, slab and garage, highlighted in yellow and green.
The existing attached garage has a crumbling foundation and the floor is cracked and
broken. Also, the walls are so out of square, due to the foundation falling away from the
garage, that you cannot use overhead doors (see photos). So if possible, when building
the new foundation and garage, I would like to extend the size of the garage from 24 feet
wide to 30 feet wide.
If the garage is moved forward to meet setbacks, it would be a great inconvenience. Our
house is built on a hill, and moving the garage forward would lower the elevation of the
garage, and we would no longer have an attached garage as we do now.
Thankyou
Michael Woitalla
# 1 Existing front of garage - you can see where the foundation is completely
deteriorated and the stone exterior has fallen away.
#2 This shows how the plywood doors are out of square so much, that you can't
use overhead doors.
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
#3 This shows how far out of plumb the existing walls are (foundation falling
away fÌ"om building).
#4 Shows the existing foundation's cracks, deterioration and rot
#5-6 Shows how the floor is cracked and some of the floor is completely
disintegrated (over the existing footing).
,4 ~ (C' t C ,\\:,.j
'2.-
./....,.~: (' ft-~!'i<':-;-.¡;'''·'~ "-,,)! n,
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 ofthis chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12,
11-12-96)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
(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 culvilinear 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.
Lot. Wh.r. Frontlg. I.
M...ur.d At I.tblck Un.
r--..··...·'{~-·· ,.
., ,'.
...' ....,.... .
IÞ. . ,.
. .
'-"
, .
. .--
.. .
.,..-
. ,.-!..
..- . .
" . .
, '
~ ,
.. ,
... .
(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.
Heck I Fla Loll
-.
Lot Lln.
100'Lot
· I
· .
· , , .
Wldlll N' I I
I _._J I
I 'I
I ...._ I
I I I
I I I
L _ L____I_-J
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)
percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
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, § I, 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 ofOrd. 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. 20-617-20-630. Reserved.
ARTICLE xnI. "R-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.
Wrd. 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) 1\vo-family dwellings.
Supp. No.9
1213
I .J '';;
^ ,1 ( Ih-" h"
tti1tl... C-,", .., --
§ 20·60
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-60. 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.
COrd. No. 80, Art. m, § 1(3·1-4(6», 12.15.86)
Sees. 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;
(2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any noncon.
forming 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, intensification, 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 nonconforming 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'. 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 similar 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
ZONING
§ 20·73
(d) Full use oC a nonconConning land use shall not be resumed iC the amount oC land or
floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or iC the intensity oC the use is in any manner
diminished Cor a period oC twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning
on the clay Collowing the last day in which the nonconConning land use was in Cull operation
and shall run continuously thereafter: Following the expiration oC twelve (12) months, the
nonconCorming land use may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the
preceding twelve (12) months. For the purposes oC this section, intensity oC use shall be mea.
sured by hours oC operation, traffic, noise, exterior storage, signs, odors, number oC employees,
and other Cactors deemed relevant by the city.
(e) Maintenance and repair oCnonconConning structures is permitted. Removal or destruc.
tion oC a nonconCorming structure to the extent oC more than fifty (50) percent oC its estimated
value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to con-
tinue the nonconCorming structure.
(0 Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the Corgoing paragraphs oC this section,
iC approved by the city council a nonconConning land use may be changed to another noncon.
Corming land use oC less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant
has the burden oC prooC regarding the relative intensities oC uses.
(g) If a nonconCorming land use is superseded or replaced by a pennitted use, the non.
conConning status oC the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions oC this
section shall tenninate.
(Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2·10-92)
See. 20·73. Nonconforming lots oC record.
(a) No variance shall be required to reconstruct a detached single-Camily dwelling located
on a nonconConning lot oC record or which is a nonconConning use iC it is destroyed by natural
disaster so long as the replacement'dwelling has a Cootprint which is no larger than that oC the
destroyed structure and is substantially the same size in building height and floor area as the
destroyed structure. Reconstruction shall commence within two (2) years oC the date oC the
destruction oC the original building and reasonable progress shall be made in completing the
project. A building pennit shall be obtained prior to construction oC the new dwelIing and the
new structure shall be constructed in compliance with all other city codes and regulations.
(b) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single·Camily dwelling on a
nonconCorming lot provided that it Cronts on a public street or approved private street and
provided that the width and area measurements are at lest seventy.five (75) percent oC the
minimum requirements oCthis chapter.
(c) Except as otherwise specifically provided Cor detached single-Camily dwelIings, there
shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes oC a structure on a
nonconCorming lot.
(d) If two (2) or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part oC the lots
do not meet the width and area requirements oC this chapter Cor lots in the district, the
Supp. No.4
1165
At/flL [\¡N-~- 1\
~
.....\
A 9: ".
) ; . .
o ..
ß 1011..1;
o ...
-¡
n checked ond
iz..- day of
..19~.
~
~',
",k
"
.0
"\
(,
'" -
~ "
. ~
"
·í
()
¡,
"
9,.
o v
r.
'\~*.~
.~þ ßJ
. ~·O
"
"
k
, t
. \) -
" ... f¡
... ~ &
, \J
;
"
"
ß'
o
"
-,.
r- '
.J
\.0
.. .{
. ,..-
.J
,
"
Q ..
ß - '.
o . .
"Í
." "'Õ
.... ,!~
.~ .
o
1.t;J.
( "o
iì
CERTIFlCA110N
I ,..,. ..., ... WI ~ _
r..·u..... ...T,......~ ~"'the
J(.:¡;~_.
rruorr
I
-e-
SCHO£ll '" MADSON, INC.
1NOIIEPI.~.iI'UMmtI
... __ . Ell a II h. SØMCD
tOSIOMI'ZIIDo~"1
--..."'"
.
, ---
M ' -:t-.
. i. ;;;
, 'I" (' ...".,....«.'"..,
t'·
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
890 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: R.... y..... Setback
Variance
APPUCANT: Mlcha.1 Woltalla
LOCATION: 6712 Hopi Road
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
Michael Woltalla, Is requesting a rear yard setback variance of 18% feet to permit a garage expansion
locatød at 6712 Hopi Road.
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 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.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, pleese 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 March 23, 2000.
,A..,.", f (J.. Ii 7/.., ,/1<......
Smooth Feed Sheets™
STEVEN & KAREN VA VRICHEK
680 I NEZ PERCE D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PETER J & KELLY M HOLZER
833 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN J & JOAN M CRONSON
801 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BETTY M JOHNSON
6694 NEZ PERCE D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LAYNE A BECKMAN MELISSA R
6686 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY R & T AMI L BRAIEDY
850 WESTERN DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG A & KIMBERLY ANDERS
6683 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM S & MARIA PEDEN
POBOX 114
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DARIN W & ALLISON R GACHN
6670 DEER WOOD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
EVELYN A PRESTEMON
6680 DEERWOOD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
~ .- --.-
. ..
KEVIN D & JULIE D MA TISON
8566 DRAKE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ELAINE C OTIERDAHL
6715 NEZ PERCE D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GARY JOHN OTIERDAHL
6691 DEER WOOD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROYAL & DORIS MARTIN TRUSTEES
6650 PAWNEE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW H CLEMENS & KA TRINA E
6687 DEER WOOD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTI
690 CITY CENTER
PO BOX 147
CHANH MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN SCOTI
690 CITY CENT
PO BOX
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRUCE JOHN SCHURMANN
PO BOX 514
LESTER PRAIRIE MN 55354
DAVID G HOLUB
6670 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES
6680 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160@
DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES
6680 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7
HERMINE R LUSTIG TRUSTEE~
6699 MOHA WI< DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LINELL BRECHT SANTELLA
881 WESTERN DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARY KAY HOGUE
6690 NEZ PERCE D
PO BOX 337
CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7
GARY J & JACQUELINE A HOFF
860 HIAWATHA D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW A BORASH
6725 NEZ PERCE D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT A WIEST
840 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG S & MONICA C KIFFMEY
6710 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL A WOITALLA
6712 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PETER A KORDONOWY &THOMAS 1
6711 NEZ PERCE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Smooth Feed Sheets™
~LAINE C OTTERDAHL
,715 NEZ PERCE D
:HANHASSEN MN 55317
)ONALD M WHITE & KAREN P G
:00 CARVER BEAC
:HANHASSEN MN 55317
ælTH M VOLK
90 CARVER BEAC
:HANHASSEN MN 55317
'ANIEL T RUTLEDGE
711 HOPI RD
HANHASSEN MN 55317
'ILLIAM HARLEY WOLFI5l'tARON BE
599 HOPI RD
HANHASSEN MN 55317
GNE MARIE KROEKER THOM
'21 HOPI RD
HANHASSEN MN 55317
,MES H GEMMILL
'27 HOPI RD
-IANHASSEN MN 55317
.MES H~GEMMILL
27 HOPI
~ EN MN 55317
,RRY L & MARY E BARRETT
41 HOPI RD
fAN HASSEN MN 55317
,ORG ESS
90 LOTUS TRL
IAN HASSEN MN 55317
~ -- .-----
IRMA HEYDT DEGLER
6711 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRUCE ROBERT JOHANSSON
6701 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LAWRENCE & PAULA VEL TKA
6724 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHARLES J & SUSAN E ZECCO
895 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KENNETH JEROME LUCASl.JiTOINETT
6735 NEZ PERCE D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FRANKLIN D ERNST & VICTORIA
840 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANGELA M PRUISNER
841 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS L & JUDITH L RAYMO
834 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW G & NICOLE M SIEME
6780 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MELVIN G HERRMANN
795 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160(!)
MARTIN P & AMY E JENSEN
770 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J SPARTZ & KELLYIA
777 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAY D HOPIA & ROBIN L M
760 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY A KING
767 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL F & BARBARA A COY
757 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK A & MARTHA J NORMAN
5801 CO RD 101
MINNETONKA MN 55345
BART T & ANNETTE R ELLSON
6800 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DOUGLAS H & CORAZON KALL
6830 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HARLAN KOEHNEN
7263 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TROY D STOTTLER & JESSICA R
6800 RINGO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
@09tS
JaS21
s aqel sSaJpPY
GREGORY J CARLSON & KATHLEEN
760 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TODD L FROSTAD
6728 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STANLEY R CRONISTER &JOANNE M
6730 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT
690C~TYCENTER
PO BOX 147
CHA N MN 55317
JOSEPH M & LORI L HARRlNGT
901 CARVER BEAC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
@.uJaJ\'o'1i
fì µ /".. ~ 1'" ~l {¡
Planning Commission Meeting - AprilS, 2000
Conrad: Discussion.
Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denying
the request for Variance #00-04 for a 5 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for
the construction of a detached· garage based upon the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant could build a detached garage without a variance.
3. Sufficient buildable area exists on the site at the required setbacks to permit the
construction of a garage.
AD voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously_
Conrad: Again Steven, you can appeal. You've got four days to go to Bob and say you don't
like.__ Again, it's one of those decisions, we'd do the same thing in your shoes. It's just hard for
us to, we'd be invalidating the ordinance...it's so unique that it wouldn't happen to the next
person.._
PUBLIC HEARING:·
MICHAEL WOIT ALLA REOUESTlNG A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 18
'Iz FEET TO PERMIT A GARAGE EXPANSION LOCATED AT 6712 HOPI ROAD.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Keith Volk
790 Carver Beach Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: Any questions of staff?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. The garage, the current foot pñnt is 24 x 23 'Iz. Is that right? Do you
consider that to be a standard sized garage by today's standards?
Generous: We see primarily...
Kind: Because often times in the past we've sided with, if the garage needs to be rebuilt, it might
as well be rebuilt to a size... but the current size is acceptable.
Conrad: Other questions?
17
PJannÏ11g Commission Meeting - AprilS, 2000
Blackowiak: Mr, Chair I have one question. When we talk about the reasonable use, we say a
single family home with a two stall garage. Do we specify attached or detached or do we just say
two stall garage?
Geoerous: It's not specified...
Blackowiak: So as long as it is a two stall garage, then it's a reasonable use? Okay.
Conrad: Is the applicant here?
Mike Woita1la: Hi. Mike Woita1la... Part of the problem is...on the plans there but the space in
Ú'ont of the garage is on a fairly steep hill and if you move it, I can move it forward 6 inches...
then I'm dropping. My garage is already 3 feet lower than the level of my house...forward it
drops down the hill even more...dropping down the hill and the area where he talks about
building a separate detached garage, that's probably...and then where the house is, in the winter
time to shovel your sidewalk when it snows in the early morning when you go to work, it's just
that, you're a long ways away from the house. The house was built in 1946 and I'm just trying to
follow the lines pretty much of where the house is now without trying to create too much
problem. It's not just an expansion for the garage. On the plans it showed...it's on a hill both
ways. On the side and on the front. I had included pictures with my application that shows you
on the foundation of the garage has deteriorated or has been cracked all around, the walls are so
out of square and unlevel that you can't put overhead doors in the garage because the walls are
like this. So the garage does need to be tom down really and put a new footing in there. And put
one in the ground under it, span crete and a garage on top to give adequate storage space for the
stuff that I have stored outside and other areas. Any questions?
Kind: If you're going to have span crete with storage underneath so it'd be a two story garage.
Why do you need that additional 6 feet width?
Mike Woitalla: The way my house is constructed, I've...it \Vas added on here and there for who
knows how long. The closest that's in my bedroom actually was built into the garage where
we're at. It's not 24 foot in depth...pull a car into the one stall.
Kind: What is the closest width?
Mike Woitalla: I'd have to say the closest goes into the garage by 3 or 4 feet...
Kind: And which is the depth? 24 or the 23 \;'.? ... I have one more question Mr. Chair. I did
go take a look at your site and there's no iguana on the roof there. The area that you want to
expand to drops off quite a bit as well so you'll need to bring fill in there so you've got a fill
issue whether you expand forward or off to the side.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - AprilS, 2000
Mike WoitaIla: Well when you dig the garage into the bottom, you're going to have a lot offill
left over and then where the hill drops off, that's where there we plan to build two retaining
wa11s... .
:Kind: Will you be taking out pine trees?
Mike Woitalla: No. One. One pine tree. There's not even going to be a driveway to the lower
garage. It's going to be mainly storage and so it's just going to be grass.
Kind: Okay, thank you.
Comad: This is a public hearing. We'll open it up. Is there a motion?
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
()pened.
Conrad: The public hearing is open.
Keith Yolk: Hello. I'm Keith Volk. I'm the neighbor to the south and I guess the only
comments I have, I wouldn't mind seeing the house fixed up a bit. Having a place to put... I
guess my only concern is pine trees...there is a substantial line oftrees...grass area or won't have
a driveway or whatever so... I guess it's okay to have storage underneath. ..but I wouldn't want
Jñm to._.because that's kind of my privacy there. That's the only comment I have.
Conrad: Other comments from anyone?
Mike Woitalla: As Keith was saying, that area where that's his privacy area or buffer area, we're
constructing the garage in the space where Bob said, there's room for a garage without those
pines...I agree that I would hate to build there... It needs a lot of work there. I just haven't done
any... The house does need a lot of work. When I bought it I realized that. It's just the process
of time and money to get it done...
Keith Yolk made some comments to the applicant from the audience, and they had a discussion
back and forth regarding the pine trees and the location of the garage.
Conrad: Okay, thank you. An)' other comments? Can I have a motion to close the public
hearin ?
g.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Any comments?
Sidney: I guess I have a different feeling about this one...h
19
PJanning Commission Meeting - AprilS, 2000
Kind: Mr. Chair, I agree with LuAnn. I think you can see where I was going on it. My only
question is whether we should set a limit as to how much could be added on. We want to keep it
at a standard sized double garage. Add a maximum of 3 feet to the current width or are we
okay...? I guess I would be curious to hear my fellow commissioners comments.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I would suggest not so much measuring the width of the garage as
setbA" ,- ûom the property line. In other words, sti11 it says he can do it at 6 feet.
Kind: I don't know how much 6 feet encroaches further into that setback area... I can't do the
math on that.
Mike WoitaIla made a comment at this point.
Kind: It's 6 inches closer what you're proposing to do?
Mike Woitalla: Correct.
Burton: I'm convinced that there's a hardship based upon the configuration of the house and I'm
inclined to...put a condition that there is not...
Kind: Because we measure setbacks from the eaves...
Conrad: Yeah...Is there a motion?
Kind: Sure, I'll make a motion. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Variance #00-3 requesting an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of a garage expansion with the following conditions. 1. Setback shall be measured
from the eaves. 2. The applicant must provide the City with a detailed grading, drainage and
erosion control plan. 3. No driveway shall be provided for the lower level garage.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Comad: Any discussion?
Kind: Number 4, the applicant shall provide a tree preservation plan.
Burton: Second.
Comad: Any further discussion?
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Variance #00-3 requesting an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of a garage expansion with the following conditions:
20
Planning Commission Meeting - AprilS, 2000
L Setback shall be measured &om the eaves.
2.. The applicant must provide the City with a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control
plan.
3. No dñveway shall be provided for the lower level garage.
4. The applicant shall provide a tree preservation plan.
AD voted in favor, except Conrad and Blackowiak who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Blackowiak gave her reasons for voting against the motion.
Conrad gave his reasons for voting against the motion.
Conrad: Anyway, you heard the vote, it's 3 to 2 so it's close. So it means of all of these tonight,
you're doing better and you do have some rationale and I think if! were you I'd be talking to Bob
about appealing this and taking it to the City Council. You do have.
Kind; It passed.
Conrad: I thought it had to go 4 to 1. It's a majority that can win.
Blackowiak: On a variance?
Conrad: I thought on this one.
Kind; I thought we debated percentage a lot. About a year ago at this time I remember.
The Planning Commission took a short recess while Bob Generous researched the percentage
needed to approve a variance.
After further research it was discovered that this item is automatically appealed to the City
Council because of a 3 to ;2 vote by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR n COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. PUBLIC/SEMI-
PUBLIC. AND PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC: 2)
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-OFFICE/
INSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL: AND 3) SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 60,000 SQ. FT.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND ARCHIVE BUILDING AND A 10.000 SO. FT.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - AprilS, 2000
CHAPEL IN ADDmON. THE CITY WILL BE REVIEWING 4) AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ADDRESSING POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI'S OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING
THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND DECISIONS ON THE NEED FOR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI' STATEMENT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE
NORTIlWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BLVD. ECKANKAR
RELIGIOUS CAMPUS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bark Klick
Linda KJoman
1015 Pontiac Court
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: Thank you Bob. Are there questions of Bob?
Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Bob, on the development, or the concept development
plan which is sheet, up in the right hand. There's a building, one of the irregular shaped
buildings set back here that's assigned as HI. Is that correct? We don't see that in this site plan.
Generous: That wouldn't be part of Phase I but it's part of...
Kind: Okay.
Generous: So in their 10 year buildout plan...
Kind: And then could you speak to how deleting the residential affects our tax base. How it
damages it tax wise?
Generous: Well staff's...based on ownership, the whole site will...
Kind: Whether there's homes there. Whether we require the homes to be built on the
resid..ntial portion?
Generous: Correct. Whether they keep this land. Unless they were to sell it and put it in... If
they were to develop that residentially, unless you have higher priced houses, the revenue versus
expenditure equation comes out on the negative. Especially with low density housing. You want
to.._
Kind: And then a question about what I would describe as the southeast comer of that
administrative building. Do you feel that that meets the design standards?
22