The URL can be used to link to this page

5 Appeal Variance/Terry Radil , - , z ~ ~ :J 1.. 1- ~ ~ ~ l1J f- - '.I) CITY OF CHANHASSEN s- PC DATE: 1/19/00 - CC DATE: 2/14/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 3/14/00 CASE#: 2000-1 STAFF REPORT By: C. Kirchoff PROPOSAL: Request for a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a.deck, gazebo and patio. LOCATION: 7415 Bent Bow Trail (Lot 10, Block 4, Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition) APPLICANT: Terry 1. Radii 7415 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 470-0488 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential ACREAGE: 14,812 sq. ft. (.34 acre) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner proposes to construct a deck, gazebo and patio that encroaches 12 feet into a required 40 foot wetland setback. At the time of building permit, the contractor was given administrative permission by staff to encroach a bay window 15 inches into the wetland setback. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. , i / / ¡ ! t~1 , -\ \ ~\' r~\: ~T Q f/~~~ /~ ._ i~ "I .' /~ ~LG'n~ljoY ¡ 'y.../ ./~ ~ /~_/"\ '\ .N C) .... --Ti ,____--1 \ ¡------ /~\ .li l' t=-i r~-~ \ :=-t. ~ X/ i·~~-¡.r~I.~.i .~.... C.:.\.'.~~ ,,' '! . / - /\ \ -~.'. ¡~ ~....., __L " .-~ '<-.. ' / / \ I""" /\ ! ~ r¡sp~ 'r--:~A ! /~=l ,n \ \ ! 7- , I J~út" ~é~· /--\'(~~\ ,\ (~ ,./i \ I//" C i ~aS¡ , .~~. \--- '-- ~. " ~}... ~. -,-.__.-._--_..~..-..._---' , " , Þ \" . 1 :-.- ! / I r,.::). I \'. I '- I -..;//. ': , 'c"" \.' C"--\¡ \. I .. : t\ '-u F~Q~-~ ~ . / r:=Jj ~\~--- : . . ...~~~ / ___ i ___---, . I \ . c: .' ¡- CD .~. I ;;:¡ / i / 'I -' / / ! ¡ , / ¡---- I ! , ¡ ! , ¡ ~ Radii Variance February 9, 2000 Page I PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On January 19,2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied this variance request by a unanimous vote. They believed that the applicant could construct a deck within the required setbacks. The applicant is appealing the decision. This report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdated information has been struck-through. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-406 requires a 40 foot setback from the outside edge of the buffer strip along a natural wetland (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND On May 14, 1997, the final plat for the Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition was approved. As part of this plat, the developer requested 20 foot front yard setbacks (30 foot front yard setbacks are required) for numerous lots, including the subject site, to "allow for additional distance of the future house from the wetlands." Staff recommended approval of some of the 10 foot front yard variances so that greater setbacks could be maintained. The subject lot was granted a front yard setback variance. During the building permit process, the developer contacted the City to ask for permission to encroach a bay window 15 inches into the 40 foot required wetland setback. Staff administratively permitted the encroachment of no more than 2 feet and required the contractor to sign a Statement of Encroachment (Attachment 4). The contractor mentioned that the patio door and the future deck would be located off of the side of the house and would not encroach into the wetland setback. The applicant would like to construct a 13 foot octagonal gazebo, a 14 foot by 23 foot (322 sq. ft.) deck and 12 foot by 16 foot (192 sq. ft.) patio. The following are the encroachments into the wetland setback: deck -10 feet, patio -12 feet and gazebo -4 feet. ANALYSIS The applicant requests a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a gazebo, deck and patio. The proposed deck and gazebo is accessed from an existing patio door. The proposed patio is accessed from the lower level. The home was constructed in the summer of 1999. RadiI Variance February 9, 2000 Page 2 Site Characteristics The lot is 14,812 sq. ft. (average depth and width -93 feet by 169 feet, respectively). The buildable area is limited by the required 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks and the 40 foot wetland setback. A natural wetland is located on the northeastern portion of the site. This wetland extends through Lots 4-10, Block 4 of the Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition, Lot 23 Block 2, Meadows 2nd Addition and Lots 4-8, Block 3, Woods at Longacres 2nd Addition (see Attachment 10). The buildable area is a rectangle and approximately 55 feet in depth, thus leaving sufficient area for a house and deck. At the time of plat review, staff determined that a 60 foot by 40 foot house pad with 12 foot by 12 foot deck could be accommodated on the site (see Attachment 5). Permitted Use This site is zoned PUD-R, Planned Unit Development- 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. Currently, a single family dwelling with a three-stall garage is on site. Reasonable Use A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a PUD-R zoning district, a reasonable use is a single-family home with a two-stall garage. The property owner currently has a reasonable use of the site. It is not a hardship to be without a deck. Furthermore, a deck could be constructed that meets ordinance requirements. Wetland Setback Although this report does not intend to justify the wetland setback, staff would like to briefly address its purpose. Wetland setbacks intend to protect the wetland from construction activities and provide a buffer from human disturbances of the ecological functioning of the wetland. These butTers also filter out harmful materials found in surface water runoff. The builder (and developer) of the home agreed to the wetland setback and was aware of its impacts on the development and the subject site. The problem with allowing structures in this setback zone is that it shifts residential activity closer to the wetland. Meanwhile, the encroachment leads to degradation of the wetland on other properties. For instance, while visiting this site, it was noted that a playground set was placed in the wetland on a neighboring property (see right picture below). Radii Variance February 9, 2000 Page 3 - Rear and Side Elevation A Neighboring Property A site inspection also revealed that the wetland buffer strip has been destroyed and the buffer strip monument is missing. It is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and install the monument signs. Staff is currently working with the developer to resolve the issue. It should also be noted that the large pile of boulders (in the side and rear yard) indicate further intrusion has been planned in the wetland setback area. Any landscaping activity is not permitted in the wetland buffer zone. This area shall remain natural. Alternative A deck can be built on the house without a variance (see Attachment 6). The deck can extend 7 feet from the home and to within 5 feet of the side property line. Although this is not their first choice, it still allows a deck to be constructed. The justification for the variance is to utilize their backyard in a manner similar to adjacent properties. The lack of a deck does not preclude the property owner from utilizing the backyard. A deck can be constructed on the property without a variance. The applicant has a self-created hardship, as they are the original owners and selected the home plan. Although it complies with ordinance, with the exception of the cantilever encroachment, the footprint is too deep to allow the deck proposed by the owner. Clearly, the deck, patio and gazebo should have been designed to maintain the required setbacks. The City compromised by allowing an encroachment of the bay window (15 inches) without a variance because of the assurance that there would be room for a deck outside of the wetland setback and that no further encroachment would take place. Staff does not support the variance since a hardship has not been demonstrated. The intent of the wetland setback requirement is to protect and enhance our natural environment. If we continue to permit encroachments, this protection will be futile. Radii Variance February 9, 2000 Page 4 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 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 these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship because a deck can be constructed on the site without a variance. Approving the variance will depart downward from pre-existing standards and create a new neighborhood wetland setback. The City, as part of the subdivision approval, granted a setback variance from the required front yard setback to permit development of the site and protect the wetland. 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 many properties in the PUD-R 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 deck 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: Since the applicant is the original owner of the property and selected the house plan, the hardship is self-created. It was shown, as part of the subdivision process, that a reasonable use could be made of the property within the required setbacks. 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. Radii Variance February 9, 2000 Page 5 Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood however, it will permit an encroachment into an environmental setback, which could lead to the degradation of the natural wetland. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. However, it will increase the degradation of a natural wetland abutting this and 10 other properties in the Longacres development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the appeal for Variance #2000-1 for a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a gazebo, deck and patio based upon the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use the property. 2. The applicant can construct a deck on the site without a variance." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-406, Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks 3. Survey and Deck Plans 4. Statement of Encroachment 5. 60 foot by 40 foot House Pad shown on survey 6. Staff Revised Deck Plans 7. Public hearing notice and property owners 8. Letter from Neighbor 9. Appeal Letter 10. Wetland Map 11. January 19,2000 Planning Commission Minutes g:\plan\cklboalradil 00-1 var.doc ·-.~.._---_.-. . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 RtSCEiVED DEC 1 4: 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 'f~puCANi: /E~ i 121/L ADDRESS: 1jt¡/, &'7 Au) #4iL t1w;1~rE/I /lJ,IJ rr:r/? TELEPHONE (Day time) ItJ /;).- fJ9.J -3//10,.., CITY Or CtìAI'IH^SS£N XWNER:~ /~-;1/ ,k #h¡¿ ADDRESS: ~J 47 Lt.J ~iL /1Æ~¡,{ff,SM Ø/?~?/P TELEPHONE: 1tJ¡.2 - ç&, - /)f/!Jg _ Comprehensjve Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Perm~ - Conditional Use Perm~ - Vacation of ROWÆasements - Interim Use Perm~ -:i. Variance 1;ryt) . UV _ Non-conforming Use Perm~ - Wetland Alteration Perm~ _ Planned Un~ Development' _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review _ NotifICation Sign - Site Plan Review" ...2L Escrow for Filing Fees! Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAPlMetes and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB) - Subdivision- TOTAL FEE $ A lIst of all property owners withIn 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the appßcatlon. 11" reduced copy of ugh the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed. the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ·..--"...-.---...-. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAl DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETlANDS PRESENT PRESENTZONJNG REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST jÍnf../ZE ,)[uI'X'r1HlIJiP76- ./)F/¡;Wéfr.¿\ ' YES NO kt I/A,ð1 /17 . / >4 ."""IIm<' ~/7U /IS This application mu~ 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 with 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 1his 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 additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies. etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have 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 extensions are approved by the applicant. ~¥ Signafu~ Ap~. '-,1h IV 'Sigmiture ;) Fee Owner ApprlCation Received on ~ Fee Paid 4? 7 f).¡::;v ;.¿); h'i Date 1..),1; Ai Date Receipt No. The appncant 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. - ------- Variance Request Detail December 14, 1999 [I¡;:",!:~~ ;~n J'" ~.,1.~ '-Ii "T .....U DEC 1 4 1999 CITY i.)f CtiA¡\¡H",::>.)t:.N Terry and Karen RadU 7415 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-47O-C488, Description of variance requested. » Proposed deck 'o\Oùld extend 6 feet into the Wetland Buffer-SétbaCk, deck stairs wculd extend an additional4feetfor a total of 10 feet. » deck size is 23 feet wide by 14 feet 'deep » 'Proposed patio 'o\Ouldextend12 feet into the Wetland Buffer Setback. » patio -size is 16 feet wide by 12 feet deep" » . Proposedgazebo'o\Ould extend 4 feet into the Wetland Buffer Setback. » gazebo is a 13 feet octagon » See attached diagram for overview of layout. We are requesting this variance to Utilize our back yard' in a similar manner as the surrounding neighbors. Most-of the properties in the area have similar sized decks and patios. Some'properties have screened in,three or four season porches, some of which' are further than the 500 feet property boundary but are within the same Long Aaes development. · ..---.----....... A-"111\C+-tMiCNT ~ ZONING § 20-406 (3) Wetlands, pristine. Wetlands that exist in a natural state and have special and unusual qualities worth protecting at a high level are called pristine. These qualities include: outstanding vegetation community, native species population, rare or un- usual species present, and habitat for rare wildlife species. (4) Utilized. Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be classified as wetl8:l1ds even if they take on wetland characteristics. Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies. (Ord. No. 180, § I, 12-14-92) Sec. 20-404. No net loss. To achieve no net loss of wetland, except as provided under section 20-416 of this article, or authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the city, a person may not drain, grade, ml, bum, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type.lU1y alteration to a wetland, permitted by a wetland alteration permit must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands. (Ord. No. 180, §1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 2, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-405. Standards. The following standards apply to all lands within and abutting a wetland: (l) Septic and soil absorption system must be a setback minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland. (2) The lowest ground floor elevation is two (2) feet above ordinary high water mark of the wetland. (3) Docks or walkways shall be elevated six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ordinary high water mark or six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ground level, whichever is greater. (4) Access across a wetland shall be by means of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a wetland alteration permit. (5) The city's Best Management Practices Handbook shall be followed. (Ord. No. 180, § I, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 3, 4-25-94; Ord. No. 240, § 11, 7-24-95) " See. 20-406. Wetland buffer strips and setbacks. (a) For lots created after December, 14, 1992, (date of ordinance adoption), a buffer strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands. All existing vegetation adjacent to a wetland shall be left; undisturbed and applied toward the buffer strip unless otherwise approved by city council. Buffer strip vegetation shall be established and maintained in accordance to the following requirements. If the buffer area is disturbed, plant species shall be selected from wetland and upland plants to provide habitat for various species of wildlife. Buffer strips shall be identified by permanent monumentation acceptable to the city. In residential subdivisions. a monument is required for each lot. In other situations, a monument is required for each three SuPp. No. 8 1188.3 .......__. __u_.~.__.. § 20-406 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE hundred (300) feet of wetland edge. The buft'er strips and structure setbacks shall meet the following danduda: .,/ Wetland 7YPe 1'ristiM Natural AgIUrban Utüized PrincipaJ Struc- 100' 40' measured 40' measured 0' ture Setback from the out- from the out- side edge of the side edge of the buft'er strip buft'er strip Buft'er Strip 2G-100' 10-30' G-20' 0' Buft'er Strip 50' 20' 10' 0' Minimum Aver- age Width % of Native Entire Entire Optional Optional Vegetatiori in Buft'er Strip I I I 8TÑ:.c . :&~. BUFFER AG/URBAN WETLAND ILLUSTRATION OO'~IW I I I I J I I I I HOllE ~YARDI 30'4 I I I I f I SImIACK FROM WE1"LAHD BUFFER 40' 10' .. WE1UHD BUF1'ER S1RP (AVERAGE 10' DEP11I1 The dimensions of the buft'er strips may be acljusted by the city based upon the quality of the , wetland,local topographic conditions, and the type and design of development being proposed. The table above provides minimum and maximum dimensions for the buffer strip. The use of a meandering buffer strip to maintain a natural appearance is encouraged. Where roadways are constricted next to a wetland, the average buffer strip width for the acljacent wetland shall Supp No. 8 1188.4 · -- --...-.---...---.- ZONING § 20-407 be maintained. Structure setbacks are also described in the table. On single-family subdivi- sions in the RSF district, the applicant must demonstrate that each lot provides sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, sixty-foot by forty-foot deep building pad, and a thirty-foot rear yard area. All of these elements must be provided outside of designated wetland and buffer strip areas. (b) For lots of record on December 14, 1992 (date of ordinance adoption) within wetland areas and for lands abutting a wetland area, the following minimum provisions are applicable unless alternative plans are approved by the city under a wetland alteration permit: Pristine Natural Setback Princi- pal Structure The city may approve reduced wetland setbacks as outlined in subparagraph (a) above. (Ord. No. 180, § I, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 240, § 12, 7-24-95) 100' 75' Ag/Urban 75' Utilized 0' Sec. 20-407. Wetland alteration. (a) An applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall adhere to the following principles in descending order of priority: (1) Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland; (2) Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation; (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and (5) Replacing unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. (b) A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued unless the proposed development complies within the provisions of the Mitigation Section of this article, as well as the standards, intent, and purpose of this article. (c) The treatment of wetlands to control nuisance algae. (1) The city must be notified prior to the use of any form of treatment. (2) At the time of notification, a person or company will be required to supply the following information: a. Location of pond. b. Area of pond to be treated. Supp. No. 10 1188.5 , -.A-TT7\~BJT "'- i ~ :i!t ¿ "'~ ,... s I ~ I'} ::: '- C · I f ~. I'} i ~j. ~ ~g C U . I ~ .Ei~ jî i~",& } Ii ' 10 ! 01 ~. . a;- ¡'Ii. .! - ...... h -i". I .. .! e¡ 'i} . ~;iI.2 .2 ., I :ë D U 1,1,11 !1~1;li!1 ... I ~ r I .UI~dtNI'IIJ~ ~. ~~ . :I n !' r mUlI~bil{~ '" I . ~ .. "! . 4 = en , .. ~ "~II I I . l' J . IH i· ; O~~ L œ~ I .., SO .. ¡¡ 2~ f:1 '" ) z . .. . . ·Ó"':N .., ... ) '" ""':Ñ...s,.1D4Ø,...IDOt___ _ 0 ~ o3e .!Q <> '" f '- r~·~-~t ~~ "' 'I.', :L' ......" ,'.~,-, -¡ , "~aL¡ "'.....1 J -:;: I.;.... C¡ fy vr:(..¡ ;.-, ',I ¡f","';...,_. . 2 ~ . en 0 a:: ..; m -J .. z ~!I i ! " 8 . ì lIa; ... LaJ hI ö a:: IWI I z " ì:ill c .I ! Ii e z is' 3 fit :liil ! -~'II .. W sl Q ~ 11 o _ a:: Õ .- s ih; f2 UI I ..... ~ -e- ~ J.. ^ /.; v' " > / < > o . o -.--..------ Ñ .... >. .a <0 .... o ., aJ a.. ,¿ CD ,¿ CD .... ,¿ (I) -><= I I I: I "'C ëñ I I' "'" ,¿ .... >. m I L .a .... M N -><= :d c ~ o . .a ¢::Q) ~&f C) !I r,,,,,,-.,,.,.'I ~.- '. ol,:' t:..:'.~ '.: ':!: -- . ~ .....;¡...! 1399 c. r\' \J{,; (..¡~Ú·'¡,\riA~.,:;¡i...I~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Gty Cmttr Dri.., PO Box 147 Ch4oh4ssm. Minnt101il55317 Phon. 612.937.1900 GmtmJ FItX 612.937.5739 Enrjn«ringFItX 6/2.937.9/52 Publir 54ft1J FItX 612.934.2524 Wlb www.å.clJ4/lharsm.mn.us ... ---0,.- A-~CfH,.I&Ji + ~'fJlJS07 STATEMENT OF ENCROACHMENT The City ofChanhassen approves Building Permit #9900507 for 7415 Bent Bow Trail. The approved structure encroaches into the wetland setback, but to the best of the knowledge of the City and the applicant, the construction of the structure will not encroach more than 2 feet in the setback zone. All future construction, including decks and patios will not be permitted to encroach on the wetland setback unless approved by a variance from the City. All conditions of the wetland setbacks for the Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition development still apply. The app' icant agrees to all conditions and statements. ,~ . t/'-/9r I Datel =0bil1 Date -- I') I') I 10 en . ...., I I . (f) '0 '0::: m z w 0::: C) C Z ::::> -' ~~f:Nr ~ gi~1 .::> ~ i! <0; & ! :li.U <0;5: c: æ liuë -.. ! .,¡-lill!g ~'''i ~ n "õìi~ ~Is s Ifl¡I.¡IJj!;!J!r !jlUI ii !Iili~ ~ ~ I ~, II Jt1JIllh z oq ~ ðlLllE 5.D: 0 -Sll!Io . W Ie-. _ .. . . . -";Ñ ..; ffi ·";~~.~.~mG2__ _ '" Q In ... ~ '" ! ~ ~ U.I ... :! U) !C !rJ :) r i~ 0 I ~~ ' :J: :I - ... I; o. . ~ .', . ~: . IH >C m - 0 "'2~ CD ... :9 ~ J .. i f',...... ....~1. -~. f' ¡.-. .1.... '_.,.,_. L~~:: : :: :~?~:; l' ¡; u ... o N '- - C¡ {y vi" l.¡ ..-, '>. :n....~... . 2 ~II i ! Iii I !~ ~ 'III! , ~,I·I ' i .. ~ Ell : 0::: ð.- ~ f2 en -1 J! I;t f:i!1 ft j _it'¡ !r=S it): ..... ø\..' 0~' 00.... I ~ -e- ~ ~ o o ... I ~ '. .. ~ - ó z . I , ) ) u) o a:: m z laJ a:: C) c Z :J ...J ä¿ f2 " I') I') J . 10 ~ . Ø) (.) I ..... : 1&.1 Q Q 1&.1 ~ A. '. 0" a: A. IL' IL ~' ... o I ~!I i , ml!~ glï1h ð .J I: en. So .-.-.. ~ -'- . ·fJ ~I I ~ d:¡ I' . 3 ¡ ·1 i' ,i" It:: .. l¡t!l:ii~! ~~~i ¡ ~.~ ~ !" i~ih .1.1.. ' ;: ,J! h~:hllfH J ò~ 18 ¡ oq" "I .llllli.!! f,.t 3< n . ~li\Þ iI.lIIÏ -N"¡..-i.ø"':cicåå . . _=~ :2 . l: :I' ;:: :> '" ~§ ~... o~ f N03"OS' 32" w --- "- "- ì I 2:. ,! ;5' i -'- .. ~ o N ,..-,..~. f"; .." ,0 .\-..... . ." .J,,,: '': . ~ . ~ .. L.I' ' -. ......' J:: ~~:.JC' I.,...,,' Cj fr vi" i,.; .' ,.. ·.1:("'..;...._..0 '" ~ o o .. . , -Z .i. .I:IIJS . J~ - 'I ! . {I)i .... ~ . ~ - .- --. -..---..---.. ~d~ò ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Variance for the Construction of a Deck APPLICANT: Terry RadII LOCATION: 7415 Bent Bow Trail NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Terry Radii, is requesting a variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a deck located at 7415 Bent Bow Trail (Lot 10, Block 4, Meadows and Longacres 4th Addition). 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, 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 ex!. 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 January 6, 2000. ~' I Q. . COUR~ ,-. ¡'l i i§~(1J \ ,,: K~~i -----1, 'Jl! L, G~ ~~r! ¡ , ,J ~~.~'~, ,'* ,,"::' \ "..! I ~LT~ \>\\ "- !J-'1'-- ì..J I--~.~.:::;~ t==:\ I .f C "0<. /~ft'-', - /_--1, .... \\ ~ìS\'~, ,i' /..', ¡'-. , " !I \\" / ".', \ ! '!.n ~\~. / " '-. 'i / / I ! ~~Òb ~a8il}" , ~<. ~ I \ .-' \. .~1h.'\. ,~i. . 'I. /TI ç::::: I I II ." .~~~~: F w!f2fJt: " ,.,/IIl:::::1 ~/\.'~,~ t 'I ,~.:_~\yj=' ,--' , . , --æ--\ L eo.1t ' ..:.-- . ~ ~. . ~~-\. q-~ ' i I ! I I I I I 1 I \.. '-.....- (i)09t!i JaSI!") CHAD ERICKSON 7315 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, ~ 55317 LEON L & NANCY S STURK 7329 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 MARK S & PAtJELA J GOLENZER 7334 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 CHRISTOPHER A & SHERR! B BURR 7371 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN. ~ 55317 DAVID FRITZ 7385 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 TERRY L RAOIL 7415 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN,MII 55317 BART JAY & REBECCA LYNN EDDY 7433 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JAMES L & LISA R COLBERT 7454 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 STEVEN GEORGE LABATT & 7457 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN,MII 55317 DAVID G & STACY R HURRELL 7460 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 THOMASS & KATHRYN J EL Y 7473 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN. MIl 553.17 JOSEPH KEl.L Y BAHR 7476 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 MARK J & KRISTIN F E SPANGRUD 7487 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 STEVEN M & NANCY P HANOUSEK 7501 BENT BOWTRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 MICHAEL W & DEBRA M BENKOVICH 2362 FAWN HILL CT CHANHASSEN, ~ 55317 MICHAEL W & DEBRA M BENKOVICH 2362 FAWN HILL CT CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JAMES P & MITRA L CAlLAGHAN 2369 FAWN HILL CT CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 DOUGLAS ELLINGSON 7398 FAWNHILLRD CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 DANIEL N & ANN M LUND 2373 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 SCOTT A & BETTE J SMTH 2395 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 saqel ssaJPPY @A~:IJ\". KEITH E ABRAHAMSON & 2403 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAVZATA, MIl 55391 JAMES E & LINDA M ELSER 2411 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 DAVID R & JEANNE MBORDEAU 2418 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JEAN M PARADISE 2419 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 BRIAN P & DIANE MLARSON 2427 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 MICHAEL C MCCRADY 7389 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN, ~ 55317 JAMES W & STACIA L SPEIGHT 7361 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 CHARLES E III & MA.RY KAY CARR 7377 MOCCASON TRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JAMES W & KARIN B BALTZELL 7399 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 .-.~-_._~-- ¡'þ09tS Ja5e1 s¡aq\!" ssaJpPV :HOLAS C & KAREN MPOWERS j4 MOCCASIN TRL ANHASSEN, t.f\ 55317 :HARD E & SANDRA A NICHOLS !4 MOCCASIN TRL ANHASSEN, t.f\ 55317 ::>MAS B & LAURA E PAPAS f4 MOCCASIN TRL ANHASSEN, t.f\ 55317 iN 0 ESCH & 4 MOCCASIN TRL ~HASSEN, t.f\ 55317 )NEY J & SANDRA L KERBER 4 MOCCASIN TRL \NHASSEN, t.f\ 55317 liD JOE & PAULA MWARD 3 MOCCASIN TRL \NHASSEN,t.f\ 55317 .LIAM HAMEL o MOCCASIN TRL ~NHASSEN, t.f\ 55317 iZAU3I\~ . --A-Tf7Jr~(eÑlB ¥ð'''L fJ l4.. ~ L I LIt-.lJt ,/If Í1 Pc 11~ tJrN4, t CoIV1;V/~S)U,.J We-b JA~ /7 ?;):t: où fM Cry 1 J/ t u_ Co u I\J c..¡ L Cjl"j.A/7 .) L~'l .5 (D 7 0 C I ì 7 Ú'" vT elL () f'. -P'1OPD5IrL o~ (),:::;. /" \) \ , " _ v '- '--t'\ v ~1-l1..s c....<:: ~p PLWINT ;: ""fL.~ QA(,), L l-oc Pr7 {o ~ ð ::t c.¡ { r; B e,...¡¡ /Ji)..J o - I MIL ~":;'~~... .. _..r·" :1.7'-.. ...', ">,..,..... , '·_.'i~!1_ JAN 11 2000 (;" ((;¡- v-"""""8- 'f, "';.1"\ S~ uJe (Tttë- Qt;,r..Æ-IJ..-.'I..N\~o S'5 240], .¡..j,",-"'T~'1..- ') A~O C TtTe To~~(...j .)... yo \ -H-<Al'JTC'L ') l..Â)e)v..L.{) t?- ~ C u...... i!A- ú£ /ttt:? f'-'\ Th '> \Á \ L I') 1"1 1.\ ^ \- ¡.j.,qJc? ND Ì)-\E\'L Oe-c:..\c 7}~ I"L..IjNNe-..J. '"'-'~ _ - ~\::'JU::>N\. <--J I 1ttçlV\ ~ O-\.e-¡,TI"-'ILt -A JA iLtfl,,)c..E f +é-e,- IT '¿)fu\ALO ~e ~"ìC-~. - We 4\L'?ù 1i-ô~G" Ie) f>G' I~J ¡Tel) Dè"cJL ~"-ì'1. ~ ìD ìTJE S ír( c..e:I-'I?'7 1- <is' - ?øvD IL~1ì)t / ~A'l. ( t CNrt L I (LEJ I rJ Jan 20 00 02:14p Te,.,.~ L. Radi1 612-470-0488 p.2 A-TV\cttM~T 9 Terry and Karen Radii 7415 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen,~ 55317-6400 47~8 January 20, 2000 Scott Botcher, City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Botcher. This is to request an appeal to the City Council of Chanhassen r:A the Planning Commissions decision to deny our Variance request (Case Number 2000-1) to construct a patio, deck and gazebo that would encróach 12 feet into a 40 foot wetland setback. The builder without our knowledge signed a Statement of Encroachment after we had signed a purchase agreement to build our home on this lot. This restricts us in building a patio off of our walkout basement, building a reasonable sized deck right outside of our dinette patio door (and not behind the garage as the staff report recommends) and building a small screened in gazebo attached to the deck. Had the builder discussed these restrictions we would have on building our deck and patio, my wife and I would have built our house on a different lot avoiding these variance issues. We are asking the City Council to grant this variance. Sincerely, ,-- /~7 j,¢}cP Terry L. Radii "'l17\~~T l --···-______...u _____.__ -- < 'Ul ~ .. (I) J.q § .. ; !~ ~ ~ II .. g Ii U II: A. .. ~ .. Ú z :s Ii! c .. :5 ~ u Z 0 g¡ ¡¡ < a: .. 0 a: -' .. ~~ ~ 0 sffi S/ :I~ m ~a: " ... ... I~ .. ~ ~ ~ . Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. 19. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. 20. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement against Lots 2 and 3 for the common use of the water and storm drainage system and encroachment of the truck turnaround area on Lot 3. The agreement shall also address maintenance responsibilities. 21. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height need to be engineered and a separate building permit obtained. A landscape hedge 3 to 4 feet in height shall be installed along the top of the retaining wall. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 40 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK LOCATED 7415 BENT BOW TRAIL (LOT 10. BLOCK 4. MEADOWS AT LONGACRES 4TH ADDITION) TERRY RADIL. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Trying to give the applicant their patio, could they use pavers? Is that considered pervious or impervious? Kirchoff: That is considered hard surface. Same as a patio. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Cindy, what's a buffer strip monument? Kirchoff: A buffer strip monument is a sign locating where the buffer strip is, correct? Aanenson: Yeah, it's a post in the ground and it's got a marquee that the city makes up that says wetland edge or conservation easement. We put it on every other lot to delineate that line. What we found is, ifit's on paper and someone's out mowing their lawn, it's hard to find. So we do require the developer to place those on the line. Kind: And this one's missing? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,2000 Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: How do they go away? Okay. I'll let that one alone. Peterson: In looking at it, when you were out there, the large pile of boulders that's currently there in the side and the rear. Is both the side and the rear intruding on the current setback or just the rear? Do you know? Kirchoff: I'm sony, I didn't understand the question. Peterson: The boulders that are pictured in the elevation on the rear and the side, are both of those intruding on the buffer? Or just one? Kirchoff: They're not encroaching into the buffer, they're in the setback. The wetland setback. And it says rear and side elevation just to identify the picture. Peterson: Got it. Kind: Mr. Chairman, you remind me of another question. You're allowed to do landscaping within the setback. It's just not in the wetland itself? Kirchoff: You can't alter the buffer and in this case there's a 10 foot buffer. That has to remain natural but the structure, any structures have to be 40 feet away from that. Kind: But the use of the back yard, of the 40 foot setback, 30 feet of it can be landscaped or mowed or used however the homeowners wants? Kirchoff: 40 feet of it can. Kind: 40 feet can? But 10 feet needs to be left natural? Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: Okay. So it's 30 feet that can be, whatever. Peterson: Other questions ofstatT. Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Teny Radii: My name is Teny Radii and I live at 7415 Bent Bow Trail. This picture actually I drew and it doesn't show a couple of the things. Right here is where the cantilever bay window comes out and that's the 15 inches that went into the wetland setback. There was a lot of discussion unfortunately that occurred that I wasn't aware of as far as between the builder and the city and I'm not sure what happened there but here's where our patio door comes out and without some type of variance we're going to have an 8 foot deck. And as far as the boulder question, . those boulders actually were put there by my landscaper. They're for a retaining wall that will 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,2000 go, it will not be part of the wetland setback at all. They're for a retaining wall that will go right here and then another one up so they're just there temporarily for the winter. He wasn't able to finish. I had one put in the front yard and he wasn't able to finish the other ones in the back yard so the boulders are not part of the setback at all. And as far as the butTer monument, I thought it was the tarp but that's clarification for me. That's basically how I purchased the property right before Thanksgiving. We moved in the day before Thanksgiving so I actually tried to get the tarp up but it was froze down and we'll be digging it out next spring to finish off our landscaping. We're asking you to give us approval to put in a reasonably sized deck, a relatively small gazebo and I do have pictures of something similar if you're of interest there. If we would have known about the original plat drawing we could have very easily built on a different lot. None of this was brought to our attention with our builder. As another point with the patio, we could have very easily put the patio door in another part of the basement so we wouldn't extend in the wetland but we just weren't in the know there and that's I guess my fault too. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Kind: Did you consider a 3 foot variance just to get your deck to be 11 feet wide? Why go for 12 feet? Terry Radii: As far as the deck? Kind: The variance. Yeah, the deck specifically. Terry Radii: Well the 12 feet variance is actually because of the patio because you're going 12 feet off of the patio and that can be adjusted. As far as the deck, we just went 14 feet out. I was talking with a builder and there is such a thing as cantilevering the deck out so we don't put things, posts in the ground. We just cantilever over the wetland setback and we could do something like that. Kind: Staff, could you speak to that? Terry Radii: And I'm not a construction person but my understanding is that you can cantilever a third of the distance that from the, you know the. Kind: I know what you mean. Terry Radii: So if! went from, I'll go up 9 feet you know with my floor joist, I could go out another 3 feet to have the cantilever so the deck would be you know 12 feet. Peterson: Your footings would be 6 feet instead of the 9. Kind: Right. So would that be encroaching still? Kirchoff: Yes, that's still an encroachment because the cantilever for the bay window was encroaching into the setback and they had to get. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 Kind: And that's free standing too, okay. Terry RadiI: Yeah, this picture actually right here, you can see if you zoom down there. The bay window is 15 inches that are encroached already. Here again I'm going to restate, had we known about the deviation from the original plat, or if the builder would have brought this to our attention, I feel like we're kind of stuck right now, which is unfortunate for everyone. Peterson: When you bought the house was there already a tentative design for a deck? Terry RadiI: No. No. He didn't include the deck with the builder at all. Normally what, this is one of their standard models. We didn't deviate from the footprint of the house very much at all. Normally what they, there are other models that have this is they pretty much do this exact same thing. You go out the door which is right here. 00 out the door and then there's a deck area that is greater than the 8 feet of this wall right here. So I'm not sure ifit's standard or not but that's a standard model. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. A motion and 'a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, BIackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward. Conrad moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Deb, do you want to tackle this one first? Kind: Sure. 0011, I like people to have decks and patios but I just don't see a way around this one. I think that it sets a precedent for encroaching in that wetland and it was so clear on that document that was signed by the builder that they can't do that. They can't go in there. It's starting to get on my nerves these builders that don't talk to their homeowners. The buyers. I don't know what we can do to make that better but I support the statTreport. Peterson: Any other comments? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I feel badly for the applicant also but I agree with the staff report. I would like to have them have a deck but I agree with Deb. It sets a bad precedent. It does seem as though there's a reasonable alternative. I guess we didn't discuss it tonight but the staff report does show that there's an alternative and based on that I don't see how we can approve it. Peterson: Okay, thank you. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said. Yes, it's unfortunate but it's very clear the builder agreed to it and there is an alternative so I think our hands are tied. Peterson: Okay. I would agree. Motion and a second please. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-1 for a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a gazebo, deck and patio based on the following, number 1 and 2. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance Request #2000-1 for a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a gazebo, deck and patio based upon the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant can construct a deck on the site without 'a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Also I'd like the record to show that an appeal from this Board may be made by a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this with a 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. Aanenson: Which would be the 14th. Peterson: The 14th of February. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR REZONING 13.41 ACRES FROM RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD-R. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL. A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.41 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF TH 101. NORTH OF MISSION HILLS AND SOUTH OF VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, MARSH GLEN, MSS HOLDINGS. LLC. Public Present: 39