Loading...
1a. Subdivide 7611 Iroquois I CITY OF - � r,....„ ,.., , .,..,..., . ..„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Adr^'nist-4or II MEMORANDUM Endorsed 1., DL0/ Mod i i,d_ TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Reject=,' Dat " 9 IFROM: Planning Staff Date Submittzd to Cor.:c.:scot DATE: May 8, 1990 Date Sub-?tied to G,u ci! IISUBJ: Anita Thompson Subdivision IIOn January 22, 1990, the City Council tabled action on a subdivision request to divide a duplex lot into two lots for a twin II home. The item was tabled when it became apparent that certain improvements were necessary for the duplex to become a twin home and meet building codes (Attachments #1 & #2) . The applicant has made all of the required improvements for the duplex to become a 11 twin home. A memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 2, 1990, states that the duplex now meets all building code requirements for zero lot line construction (Attachment #3) . The improvements have been II inspected and approved by the Building Department. The attached report provide background and information first presented to the City Council (Attachment #4) . Staff still feels the property can II be subdivided as a metes and bounds description since the conditions of the property will not be changing beyond existing conditions. IISTAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: II "The City Council approves Subdivision #89-22 as shown on the plans dated January 3, 1990, with the following conditions: II 1. The two resulting lots can only be used as a site for a twin home with a zero lot line. II2. The twin home shall conform to all building code requirements. 3. A 10 foot front yard and a 5 foot side yard utility easement II and any additional easements covering existing utilities shall be provided over the subject property. " I 1 11 Anita Thompson Subdivision May 8, 1990 ' Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council minutes dated January 22, 1990. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 12, 1990. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 2, 1990. 4. Staff report dated January 22, 1990. I 11 I I City Council Meeting - - Jam:, r 22, 1990 _ 1 sheds and that is coming up to the Planning Commission. You should rake your li presentations to then. After the Planning Commission acts, it will come back to City Council. You'll be discussing that at a future date. You may wish to ask the City Attorney between then and now to provide an opinion as to your ability 1 II to deny those storage sheds based on potential increases of traffic that it may generate. I have some real questions as to whether or not we can do that but I think Roger should respond to that question when the item, cones back to City II Council. Terry Beauchane: But the same holds true for Moon Valley and then any other potential construction or rezoning that may go on down on that stretch of highway. It's not just the shed. Don Ashworth: I agree and later on we'll be talking about Moon Valley and you I may wish to speak again at that time. Councilman Boyt: We certainly have the ability to, we may not be able to turn II down the request to expand but we can certainly put conditions on it that will do more to guarantee traffic safety just like we did at TH 41 and TH 7. Just like we've done on a number of other times. Councilwoman Dimler: You mean with signs? Councilman Boyt: No. Building turn lanes. Putting no cross dividers. We can 1 work with the State to do a lot of things along there. Terry Beauchane: Or slowing down the speed limit. Putting in no passing zones. 1 Councilman Johnson: No left turns. i Terry Beauchane: Thank you. I Mayor an del: Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to make a presentation to the Council? I r F` / T� LIC``HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION, REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT CONTAINING A DOUBLE BUNGALOW INTO TWO SEPARATE LEGAL LOTS, 7611 AND 7613 II IROQUOIS, ANITA THOMPSON. Public Present: II Name Address Kevin Velgersdike 7610 Iroquois I Paul Krauss: The applicant is requesting approval to divide the existing lot in I half. The lot contains at the present time a duplex home which would be divided down the party wall. City Code requires that the Council approve metes and bounds divisions which this is. We think there are two issues with this II proposal. The first is that the lot does not meet the 20,000 square foot minimum area now does it meet or do the individual lots meet the 50 foot frontage that are required for duplex homes. In fact duplex homes are allowed I 6 43/1/ I I City Council Meeting 'wary 22; 1990 in the R-4 district and this is an RSF zoning. Basically what you have there is a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. We believe that the City Council could however approve the metes and bounds division by finding that ' while the existing dwelling and lot are non-conformping, that the proposed action does not really intensify the use and that's what we believe to be the case. Fundamentally there's a duplex on the property now. There would continue to be ' two dwelling units on in the future. They would just be divided. We believe that this interpretation could be applied if you choose to do so since the lot existed prior to the date of enactment of the ordinance. We also note that ' there are similar haves and lots, duplex haves and what not, in this area so there's a standard if you will for non-conforming situations. If the Council believes that their request should be considered as an intensification of a non-conforming use, their request could be resubmitted back through the Planning ' Commission and further evaluated. Staff has discussed this proposal with the Public Safety Department and they're raising a new issue that's not in the report. They'd like the home or they want the home to be brought up to Code for ' duplex dwellings which requires fire rated walls and what not inbetween separate services. They've asked that we not allow, that we authorize approval of the plat if you choose to do so but that we authorize ourselves not to file it until they've improved the property and have had an approved inspection from Public ' Safety. So we're recommending that that be added as condition 4 but we are recommending that it be approved. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Anita Thompson here? Is there anyone representing her? Is there anyone in opposition of the proposal that would like to address it? Please step up and state your name and your address please. 1 Kevin Velgersdike: Kevin Velgersdike, 7610 Iroquois. Just two points. One, I'm not aware of any other similar double bungalows on the street of Iroquois in that area. Smaller lots. I believe the remaining hares on that are single dwellings on Iroquois. My other point is, of concern I guess more, would be in subdividing these two, are they going to be two individual residences and if so, what is going to govern the maintenance of these two residences? My main concern would be leaky roof. If the one owner has to replace the roof, the other owner doesn't really want to spend the money. Am I going to be staring at a building with two different colored shingles at it. Painting and such so I U guess if the Council okays it, I would like to see same sort of an agreement on maintenance on that property so that an agreement to the fact that it's maintained consistently. There's no problems. I've lived in townhames and have always been imemrhers of associations that regulate the grounds care, the building care and such so that would be my one concern. The whole idea, I don't necessarily oppose as long as it's regulated. ' Mayor Chmmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue? As I said, this is a public hearing. 1 Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dirtier seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Councilman Johnson: Do you mean to say that it currently doesn't meet duplex standards? Paul Krauss: No it doesn't. Duplex requires 20,000 square feet and 50 foot of 7 I City Council Meeting - Janu ► 22, 1990 i I/ frontage. I Cbuncilman Johnson: No, I mean the house itself. The Public Safety side of things or is it designated...twin have standards? I mean duplex and twin haves are two different things on the building codes I believe. Paul Krauss: Yeah. Excuse my use of the semantics but it does not currently ' meet the requirements for having two separate ownerships on the same dwelling. It's been preliminarily reviewed by our building department and they're going to be looking for things like a fire rated wall, which may mean the construction of a new interior walls. We're not sure but there would be a requirement for two separate utility services and those sorts of things. In all likelihood we don't believe it's old enough that it probably does not. Councilman Johnson: Thank you. Councilman Workman: I guess in regards to some of the requirements, I think ' Roger would agree that we can't make homeowners paint their house or do a certain thing to their roof other than maybe putting buffalo chips on it or something. I have a good friend of mine in Eden Prairie who lives in a twin have or a duplex, I'm not sure what the difference is and he's a very, very picky fellow. In other words, keep things painted and neat and clean and mowed, shoveled and everything else. His neighbor isn't that way but he's attached. Half the time the owner was renting it to other people so he wasn't there and he didn't really care. But my buddy while frustrated, never would have done half the house. Painted half the place a different color or put different shingling -- on or anything to offset the whole. As picky as he was, he wasn't going to do something like that and maybe there's people who wouldn't care but I don't think you'd well the place if it was half of a mess like that. That's certainly going to hurt your resale with what the next door neighbor does so I think they automatically end up working in tandem but I don't think we can put covenants on that house to tell then how they have to do things. Roger Knutson: Sometimes you're surprised by what other people do but no one who was advised would ever buy half a twin home or a duplex unless there were party wall agreements in place. Unless there are maintenance agreements in place and that sort of thing. Enforcing those is a private matter and sometimes they don't work. I can't believe that someone would buy one of those things without having it in place so I'm assuming it will be there. Councilman Johnson: First time have buyers would do a whole lot because they ' don't know any better. Roger Knutson: But if they hire a lawyer. , Councilman Johnson: They don't enough to hire a lawyer. Roger Knutson: It is possible. I Mayor Chmiel: You're plugging for business Roger. Roger Knutson: It is , possible. It is possible that it could happen but it sure would be foolhardy. 8 1 1 City Council Meeting - -,nuary 22; 1990 11 Councilman Boyt: I would suggest, this is a rather interesting dilemma. On the one hand I agree with staff that this shouldn't have care through as a request for a variance. I don't think I could have, I would have voted against it if it ' was, and will if it becomes a request for a variance. I think that this, it wasn't built to be a twin home and I think we stand to create a problem when we allow it to go under two owners instead of one. The things that we've eluded ' to, the neighbor mentioned and in all reasonableness they shouldn't happen. But we sure put the opportunity out there for it to happen. If it was designed and built as a twinhote it would have, one, it would be up to Code but the other one is the way it would be laid out would provide a certain amount of insulation in the two homeowners from each other. So that on the one hand, that tells me that we really shouldn't do this. Or at least I shouldn't vote for it. On the other hand, we've got the rights of somebody who owns a piece of property and a house ' and they're saying what I want to do is I want the opportunity to sell this in two separate pieces. So that's what I see as the dilemma and I'm not sure that I've worked out an answer yet. I'd be happy to listen to what others have to 1 say about it. I don't like either one of them I guess is what I'm saying. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my, I wish Anita were here because I'd like to ask her why and get a little bit more insight as to what her particular situation is ' but my feeling right now is that I don't want to create any potential problems which I can see this would be, especially since it's surrounded by single fairly. Mayor Qrmiel: I guess basically that's a part of my concern. That being a single family residential area. TO go into a twin home sort of disrupts things to a certain portion within that specific area and how does that really apply to the area in itself as far as the values on the homes. What is that going to do for the residential single family residential within the area? I guess I have sane concerns about that. 'i Councilman Johnson: It's an existing building though. Mayor Chmiel: I know it is. Councilman Johnson: One thing I see of it to an advantage, the only advantage I see of it is now you're going to have half of it occupied by an owner versus a 1 renter. In general owners will take better care of their personal possession than a renter will take care of somebody elses personal possession. Mayor Q iel: Unless you get a good renter. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. There's good renters. One of my 3 renters I once had when I was stuck with same rental property unfortunately was good. Mayor Chmael: 1 of 3. ' Councilman Johnson: 1 of 3. The other 2 still owe fie money. Councilman Boyt: We certainly have no guarantee of it but it would seer as ' though, I think it's fairly common for people in this situation, for the owner to live in half of it and rent the other half. Councilman Johnson: That's what's happening now I believe. 9 i City Council Meeting - Jant .' 22, 1990 I/ I/ Councilman Boyt: I think from a maintenance standpoint and various other things, that's ideal. We have no way of guaranteeing that that would happen. , They could conceiveably rent both halves out. Mayor Chirdel: I guess the concern as I've mentioned, it bothers me just a little. I know if I was located within an area and someone wished to do that to that particular building, I'd probably be a little leery about it because it does charge the complexity of the area. It's a hard judgment call. It really is. Councilman Johnson: Paul, have you net Mrs. Thompson? Paul Krauss: No, I have not. Councilwoman Dimler: ...her half and own it and yet sell the other half off? Is that feasible? Mayor andel: That could possibly be. I'm not sure. Councilman Boyt: You make an awfully good point when you say that this area isn't zoned for twin homes. Councilman Johnson: It isn't zoned for duplexes either. Mayor Chmiel: It's all single family residential. Councilman Workman: Nothing's going to change by the zoning though. Councilman Johnson: It's still going to be a non-conforming use. It's an ' existing non-conforming use without enough lot area. Lot frontage or anything for a duplex or a twin hare. The only thing that's going to be different is you're not going to have renters in there. We'll have two different owners to work with. Councilman Boyt: You're not guaranteeing that you won't have renters. Somebody could easily buy that and rent it out. Councilman Johnson: That's true. Mayor Chmiel: No question. That can always happen. Councilman Johnson: With any single family you can do that too. I think that the requirement to bring it to twin hare standards definitely needs to be in there because there are same definite safety considerations and also they may have trouble getting insurance and stuff on their half of the home if they don't have those fire walls inbetween. There could be some problems right there. And that in itself might be of a big enough expense to Mrs. Thompson that she may not do it. I'm not sure, if we're going for the fire rated walls, that's basically putting another slab of drywall, as I understand this, over all adjoining walls on both sides. So you'd have two pieces of drywall and then doing the same thing in the attic. Building a wall through the attic and all levels. 1 10 1 City Council Meeting - 'nuary 22, 1990 11 Mayor Cimiel: Any further discussion? Councilman Johnson: If she wants to pay the money, I'm for it. I'll let her do it. Mayor Ch iel: I guess I still have a real concern about this Jay. Starting ' something within that residential area with two. Changing it. A lot of people who have built their own haves there and have bought haves because it's strictly residential and single family and this is changing that whole complexity of it, at least is my opinion. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Changing it closer to what they have. Everybody in their own ownership. It may be eliminating a rental. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you're talking about taking one individual have and putting it into two. ' Councilman Johnson: This is two now. This is a duplex. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Councilman Johnson: An existing duplex where she rents out half of it. ' Councilman Work an: I'm just thinking, we can talk about all the combinations it might be but we're always going to, we'll eternally have a rental situation there as it sits. Potentially we would have two ownership situations. We could potentially have two renters situations right now too. I mean we could always ' have that combination everywhere but I think we're going to eternally having renting situation if it stays as it is because nobody's going to be able to buy the other half. ' Councilman Johnson: Did notices go out to all the neighbors on this? Paul Krauss: We would have notified our normal list, yeah. Councilman Johnson: How long ago? 2 weeks? ' Councilman Workman: I think it's just a situation that is existing. Changing the zoning and what we call it doesn't do a whole lot. As it sits, it should have never been allowed in the neighborhood. ' Mayor Crmiel: Mn the first place. I agree. When did you get your notice? Zteo weeks ago? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I know the people that live next door to this. By the way, the map is wrong. It's across the street from that lot that's shown on the map. I don't know if that rakes any difference to it. I think it kind of ' showed your house on the map. Councilman Workman: At this stage I don't know what would be lost. Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval with condition 4 that the home be upgraded to twin have standards before the plat can be filed. 11 City Council Meeting - Janu • 22, 1990 1 Mayor Cbmiel: Is there a second? I/ Councilman Workman: I'll second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Don Ashworth: Staff would have a question in terms of, let's assume that the ' current ordinance requires separate water for each unit. Separate sewer line. Would you be looking to that in that? Is that part of the consideration? Councilman Johnson: Separate sewer line would be awful difficult. I can see , how you could put in separate water peters for both and separate gas meters and separate electrical but separate sewer line, you have to replunb the whole house. Don Ashworth: Staff had anticipated there might be a single line. Require easements so that when we get over there and repair it but if the current standards would say each one has a separate waterline and a separate sewer. Councilman Johnson: How about as feasible but primarily interested in the 11 public safety side of it? The fire walls. Mayor Chrriel: That's mandated by ordinance or by the State. Councilman Johnson: The fire walls? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: Yeah but see, it's an existing house. By doing this split we can make them put in the fire walls but if she doesn't do the split, then she doesn't have to put in the fire walls. Councilman Boyt: Oh I don't think that's true. Councilman Johnson: That is true. Councilman Boyt: You're saying that once the Fire Marshall determines that you're not in compliance with the Code he can't enforce it? I don't believe that. Councilman Johnson: It's not new construction. , Mayor Chtriel: You're saying once she had someone in? Councilman Johnson: If she pulled a building permit to do anything in that house, we could make her change the walls. Is she in compliance with the duplex codes? , Jim Chaffee: I don't know that right now. Don Ashworth: I'm sure she is not though because no building 15 years old is 1 currently in compliance with new codes. Councilman Johnson: So your house is not either Bill. , 12 1 City Council Meeting - 'amity 22, 1990 Don Ashworth: Nor is mine. Councilman Boyt: I don't know that single family residential fire codes have changed. ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: But I know that if the fire inspector canes out and inspects our place and chooses not to do any enforcement, that's negligence. I'm sure ' that that would make it. Don Ashworth: No. A good example is adjacent to your furnance you have to have a fresh air return caning into that furnance area. That's a new requirement. I don't have that in my home. It's not a matter that my house is going to burn up or yours but they believe that that's a good requirement for all new construction. Now I guess my question is, do we force Anita to run in that fresh air return adjacent to that furnance because that would be required under new construction. ' Mayor Chmiel: What about Minnegasco? What are their requirements? Can two people have one furnance and split costs accordingly and do they have to have individual furnances? Councilman Workman: They do in rentals. Jim Chaffee: I don't think they have any requirements one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: They do with double metering. I know they have something. Jim Chaffee: But as far as if you want to rent your home out and you only have one... Mayor Chmiel: But who's the responsible party for that ball of the two being there? ' Jim Chaffee: To whoever the bill is sent to. Councilman Boyt: I would think, as much as I normally hate to delay items from one agenda to another, that there's two things that it would be good to know. ' One of them is this discussion we've just had. What are the facts rather than what are your and my estimated idea of the facts. The other one is, I really think that this is going to amount to quite a dollar expenditure and does the ' applicant really want to pursue this if this represents a $10,000.00 or $15,000.00 expenditure? Maybe we need a little time to get those questions answered. Councilwaran Dimler: I would be in favor of tabling as well. I would like to hear Anita's. Councilman Johnson: I'll withdraw my motion if you'll withdraw your second. Mayor Chmiel: Both have been withdrawn. 13 City Council Meeting - Jan' y 22, 1990 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to hear Anita speak as to why. I'd like to take her reason into consideration. JJ Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move to table this for staff to inform Anita one, t , of this requirement for the twin home standards so she can evaluate the effect upon herself on that. And to answer sane of these other questions that have been brought up here. Cbunci lwaran Dirler: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Diirler seconded to table a request for an adminstrative subdivision to subdivide a lot containing a double bungalow into two separate lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION OUTLINING ISSUES CONCERNING REGULATIONS CF CIGARETTE SALES. ' Mayor Chm►iel: This basically I think should have been labeled as a reconsideration. I Councilman Johnson: No, this is a different one. 4 is the reconsideration. Mayor Chm►iel: Oh, I'm sorry. This is yours Jay. Sorry about that. Go ahead. , Councilman Johnson: Well basically I think we've talked about this twice before in that we've been working on reducing the availability of cigarettes to minors in the City and one of the means for minors to get cigarettes is shoplifting. Men those cigarettes are prominently displayed where shoplifting is very easy, it becomes even a more utilized method of obtaining it. It also has other repercussions I believe on the kids even though they're just trying to get cigarettes but what's next type deal on shoplifting. I talked to the new manager over at Brooke's and asked him what his monthly inventory showed on his cigarette shoplifting. He said it was very high recently. The source may not i totally be minors. He does not know exactly why. As a matter of fact, I have observed an employee several months back basically shoplift a pack of cigarettes. Open them up and have a smoke when they had smokers in there. But that employee's no longer there. But they said in the recent months they have had a very high losses on tobacco products. I've only looked at two of our facilities, Brooke's and Kenny's. I didn't go over to SuperAmerica over on TH 7 and TH 41. I meant to but never got there. And I didn't look at the Super Q as to what their effect is. Most of the displays they have can be fairly easily moved behind the counter or a lexan shield put around the front of the to where it's a clear shield. You can still see the display but you can't reach in from the front and get at the cigarettes. I did find out that the cigarette companies pay to have their displays placed in these stores. These special displays where you can get your sunglasses with a pack of cigarettes or whatever it is that they give you to try to entice you into buying cigarettes. Those displays, the merchants are paid to have those in there so there will be an effect on the merchants with that. I'm not sure how much they get paid for it. I can't imagine that it's a too terribly big amount but I'd like to see, I do not see it as a big infringement upon the merchants' profits in comparison to the harm and it may even save them money in shoplifting expenses as we go. 14 , CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 _' FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official yak ' DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJ : 7611 & 7613 Iroquis; Lot 8, Block 3, Highland Park ( 89-22 SUB) I inspected the above referenced duplex on 2/12/90 to determine changes necessary for it to be converted to a twin home . 1) National Electrical Code requires separate electrical service for each home . Each occupancy presently has separate electrical services as required. 1 2) City policy requires separate sewer and water services . Each occupancy presently has separate sewer and water services . 1: 3 ) Uniform Building Code requires a one hour wall for each occu- pancy when the wall is on the property line (table 5-A) . The one hour wall must be continuous from the basement slab to the r roof deck . Subdividing Lot 8 will place the south wall of 7611 and the north wall of 7613 on the new property line . It was unclear at my inspection if 2 one hour walls are present; 1 further inspection will be required. 4 ) Uniform Building Code requires a parapet (sec. 1709 ) . In 1 order to allow the elimination of parapets, the exceptions for area separation walls are permitted. (sec. 505 (e ) 3 exp. 2A) . . . .Area separation walls may terminate on the underside of roof sheathing. . . .providing the framing is of not less 1 than one hour construction for a width of 5 feet on each side of the wall . In other words, 5/8" type sheetrock must be applied to the underside of the roof sheathing 5' back from 1 the center walls on each side of the walls . 1 The applicant must have a permit and inspections to make these improvements . I have mailed a copy of this memo to the homeowner, Anita Thompson, and the realtor, Judy Siegel . )0/), I 1 ` •-•-::.i.:::-,-;::::- - - - .... c•... '� .-.,: •"'` ~ �� �.tiy�::':`:��'ti\ ,...^�:..:- rte=:: " _ = - - f I to B C *crb(e 5-A I °r n I H 6—Semiconductor fabrication facilities and comparable research and develop- a (Cont.) ment areas when the facilities in which hazardous production materials are 4 hours less than 5 feet, Not permitted less than 1' used are designed and constructed in accordance with Section 911 and 2.hours less than 5 feet,protected less than p storage,handling and use of hazardous materials is in accordance with the 10 feet,1 hour less than 20 feet .:4 Fire Code.[See also Section 901(a),Division 6.1 20 feet . - • p I 1—Nurseries for the full-time.caie of children under the age of six(each accom- 2 hours less than 5 feet, Z See also modating more than five persons)—- - 1 hour elsewhere _ I Section Hospitals,sanitariums,nursing homes with nonambulatory patients and Not permitted less than 5 1002 similar buildings(each accommodating more-than five persons) feet 2�-Nursing homes for ambulatory patients,homes for children six years of age 1 hour less than 10 feet or over(each accommodating more than five persons) I _ _ 3-Mental hospitals,mental sanitariums,jails,prisons,reformatories and 2 hours less than 5 feet, Not permitted less than (30.5 - buildings where personal liberties of inmates are similarly restrained 1 hour elsewhere 5 feet,protected less than 10 feet .1'7'p C' M2 .1—Private garages,carports,sheds and agricultural buildings 1 hour less than 3 feet Not permitted less than I (See also Section 1101,Division 1.) (or may be protected on 3 feet the exterior with materi- als approved for 1-hour fire-resistive construc- - -tion) I . 2—Fences over 6 feet high,tanks and towers Not regulated for fire resistance R Hotels and apartment houses 1 hour less than 5 feet Not permitted less than See also Convents and monasteries(each accommodating more than 10 persons) 5 feet Section CD-Dwellings and lodging houses - 1 hour less than 3 feet Not permitted less than 3feet - • y.i 5 O5 (it) 3 f-e! R 3 V.�t,ro-101( 2For agricultural buildings,see Appendix Chapter 11. v0-4. fit N r Pt n,�.‘I'S NOTES: (1)See Section 504 for types of walls affected and requirements coveringpercentage of openings pdrmitted in exterior walls. (2)For additional restrictions,see chapters under Occupancy_and Types of Construction. - I m (3)For walls facing yards andxublic ways,see Part IV.:w, f (4)Openings shall be protected by a fire assembly having a three-fourth's=lioiir fue=protectton ratiitg. I I I I I I I 1 • CITYbF f CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I ' FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official kill( - DATE: May 2, 1990 1 SUBJ: Anita Thompson, 7611 Iroquois A permit was issued on April 12, 1990 to make the alterations as outlined in my memo dated February 12, 1990. The corrections have been made and inspected. The duplex now meets all building =1 code requirements for zero lot line construction and this depart- ment has no objections to the lot division as proposed. 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 L--% ITY h V O � P.C. DATE: ^.�•—�, CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: Jan. 22, 199011 CASE NO: 89-22 SUB . Prepared by: Olsen/v I STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Metes and Bounds Subdivision of a Platted Lot to Split a Duplex into a Twinhome 1 Z 4 V LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 3, Highland Park J LL APPLICANT: Anita Thompson Q 7611 Iroquois Chanhassen, MN 55317 11 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 13,308 square feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family S- RSF; single family E- RSF; duplex CI; 0 W- RSF; single family W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available 11 vailable to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a duplex. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential \ • 4 — \ - - - - ",154.....• s,_ vii „ Li - : ;, .. . /---- r Ak 4911 . A im r.. ` ,,.. IS s• lb. 77-.-- Andy= r. ft.:1: t-'-?1,147/. ; Tr7:5:1`, •7,,v4 \ .04, /I ( "wig fiza, 3 :407-stivi,!-041 : FRiprti-tyk _____ • lif . RD --. Cep' 1• rant :: .." --4- , '•- Age• �,,� •, ' , ` LOTUS�•• ■ . �i ��fRV T�•�7 -��►k �• pit r �.� i�� In III� ia•"1 ...Ala .•4 .■ l~. ', (-*� �� Vii: R'. I E ;I,il z J ��6 ,� sop 4�. rte' A A. .� '=� 0F• ' ■Qs* to um..... ..,..,., I III a iii ._%1c$ith �A 11111 ,� Air witmr,-„ w• •H .of. fI ti p0 ,L__ --- ---i-vi4-iikluml■4' * \ luipticksor W� lea= r ^..) /� •. ., TT � � ` 4'ii �E� lt.� �- ■ l � "Ilt - I \©�J --k4t,\., - * ri. °PPO +. /6te-. RS . . s °°`-..' - .ft,' di Vs ST,011 14: it(keigreg-- Pe `, �► (uii 2■■■ I I = , , finnel tr--_-: avAIN iithai "Itdr,40% -sa .. a tip ■1+- �i Is r -�,j�■■■�■ � � 1: ME ors 1 R4 -- No_ _ =,:. .t.. .�. i _ ,)) irek -_miliallabh4.11 :zhair- lui tk*. II m-/14.1/1101 it Icn7g41 -itt►fi■ tal l 1114 . ■_,,i■u:calm U. =•; . : I Thompson Subdivision January 22, 1990 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS , Section 18-37 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance allows the City Council to approve a metes and bounds subdivision of a platted lot into two lots in areas inside the Metropolitan Council' s Urban Service Area, if both resulting lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and abut an existing public street. To the extent possible, the new boundary lines shall be parallel to the existing lot line. ANALYSIS ' The existing lot contains 13,308 square feet and a duplex home. The lot is located in one of the older subdivisions of the city which contain lot areas which do not meet the minimum require- ments of the current City Code. The subdivision contains single family residences and a few duplex residences. The applicant wishes to subdivide the lot into two lots so that the property can be sold as a twinhome with each half containing its own pro- perty rather than being on a common lot. The zoning ordinance requires a 2-family dwelling to have 10, 000 square feet per dwelling unit and 50 feet of lot frontage per dwelling unit. The subject property does not meet the minimum standards required. Section 20-71 of the zoning ordinance states that the lawful use of a building or land existing on February 19, 1987, may be continued although such use does not conform with the provisions of this chapter. Except as otherwise pro- vided, non-conforming uses shall not be extended or enlarged. An interpretation of the non-conforming use section of the zoning code would allow the subject property to be subdivided as a metes and bounds since it is not intensifying the use, does not change land use, and continues to be a lawful non-conforming use. The only change in the situation as a result of a metes and bounds subdivision would be change in ownership of the land. The City Council can decide that the proposed metes and bounds subdivision does not meet the minimum requirements, does not apply as a non-conforming use and must therefore go through the platting procedure and receive variances. Staff feels that the property should be permitted to be subdivided as a metes and bounds subdivision since the conditions of the property and land use will not be changing beyond existing conditions. In the event that the existing structure is destroyed, staff recommends approval be conditioned on the site being used only as a twinhome site. The subject property has a 5 foot utility ease- ment along the rear lot line. The typical 10 ' and 5' utility easements should be provided along the front and side lot lines ( this does not include the new interior zero lot line) . The Engineering Department shall review existing utility hookups and require any additional easements necessary to ensure access to utilities servicing the site. I t I Thompson Subdivision January 22 , 1990 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council recommends approval of Subdivision #89-22 as ' shown on the plans dated January 3, 1990 with the following conditions: 1. The two resulting lots can only be used as a site for a twinhome with a zero lot line. 2 . The twinhome shall conform to all building code requirements. ' 3. A 10 foot front yard and 5 foot side yard utility easement and any additional easements covering existing utilities shall be provided over the subject property. " ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Subdivision ordinance. 2 . Zoning ordinance. 3. Metes and bounds survey dated January 3, 1990. I 1 I I I I I§ 18-36 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE DIVISION 2.PLATTING PROCEDURES 1 Sec. 18-36. Generally. I Notice requirement and procedures set forth in this chapter in excess of those required by state law are directory. Failure to comply with such procedures will not invalidate the I proceedings. (Ord.No. 33-D, §4.3,2-25-85) III Sec. 18-37. Exemption. (a) The city clerk shall certify that the following conveyances are exempt from platting if I the new and residual parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for a buildable lot and are on an existing public street.The applicant shall furnish the city a survey 111 prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor for review: (1) Dividing a platted lot to add a portion of the lot to an abutting lot; I(2) Dividing a metes and bounds parcel to add a portion of the parcel to an abutting parcel; (3) In areas outside the Metropolitan Council's 1990 urban service area,the separation I of a parcel into two(2)or three(3)parcels if all resulting parcels are capable of being y further subdivided into buildable lots under the zoning ordinance. I (b) The city council may approve a metes and bounds subdivision of a platted lot into two (2) lots in areas inside the Metropolitan Council's 1990 urban service area if both resulting lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance and abut an existing public street.To the extent possible,the new boundary line shall be parallel to a previously existing Iot line.The city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed subdivision after notice of I the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing has been published once in the official newspaper, and a proposed development notification sign has been erected on the subject property by the applicant,both at least ten(10)days before the date of hearing.Written notice I shall also be mailed by the city to the applicant and all owners of record within five hundred (500)feet of the outer boundaries of the subdivision. Failure to post a proposed development notification sign or to give notice or defects in the notice shall not affect the validity of the I L_______ proceedings. At least three (3) weeks prior to the hearing the applicant shall submit to the city: (1) A survey(prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor); I (2) A list of property owners within five hundred(500)feet of the boundaries of the parcel I to be subdivided; (3) Except as waived by the city, all information required for plats. (Ord.No.33-D, §4.2,2-25-85) 1000 I I 1 §20-58 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. - (4) That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of a self-created ' hardship. (5) That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood wherein the property is ' situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. (Ord.No.80,Art.III, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-15-86) ' Sec. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling Imay only be allowed under the following circumstances: (1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. ' (2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one(1)driveway and one(1)main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not established(e.g. gas, water,sewer,etc.). (4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health,safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. ) (Ord. No. 80,Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-15-86) 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. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-4(6)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-61-20.70. Reserved. ' DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Nonconforming buildings and uses. ' The lawful use of a building or land existing on February 19, 1987 may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of this chapter. Except as otherwise provided, nonconforming uses shall not be extended or enlarged. ' (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 5(3-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming lots of record. Single-family lots in the A-2 and RR Districts established prior to February 19,1987 shall be deemed as buildable lots. In the RSF and R-4 districts, notwithstanding limitations im- i 1162 1 t iw, 191f ,__ t � 1 ....._�..._.- ors scwr..r .s,ii� CERTIFICATE ,:� ) Edo\ 'doeo Waft=Road OF trio.Minnesota 55344 IIIIIIIMIIIMMEMOM ' t i MIMI """" SURVEY emonooeomoomsmioiesmaoiipeowrsim •12)934.4242 OW. IMIIIIIIMEMMINM ,` Ac ,.` , ---v 1 Survey for: A Al t TA 1140 W1 Psu J 1 Job No. S999 I Bk. 5o9 pg. -IL !' !?"\Ylr. ? O ED 1,01 01 U151O I J . 3 i 1ici0 I Pi) 1 Cs Flo RIR ZS SCALE: l'"1 30 Akorw wers> co Ay ex Pliufi6ASEfi�t t I nharizor m IC o� nora 1 CIO. 00 , LR % .N , — II. °l — N Z � � 30.8 :° J� th AREA ll 7Z�$gQUfl¢E F 4'nJ N o I N '- I Z I I 0 I l 39 t O a -47 . I ARZ4oS O is,* Irt t '•r tv 31.1 �' * t. Za.e4 lay .A om` 19 J, -"-4� `u O 4,0j,0 5 'RE Fear a --- U-nulY EASEstrai l' I i3S'2 I` 5 a 1IC-CO I-- ---- : 1 -7 & 1-, 1 ZAP 1 r PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ' - (7613 Iroquois Chanhassen,Minnesota) That part of Lot 8, Block 3, HIGHLAND PARK according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver . I County Minnesota, lying Southeasterly of a line run from a point on the West line of said Lot 8,, distant 54.11 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof, to a point on the East line of said Lot 8, distant 50.02 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, and there terminating. I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF SELL Minya CA ,MINNESOTA. DIEGEM6ER A I SURVEYED BY ME THIS 8 r DAY OF ,t1i Si I!9 le ma RONALD L '- EGE- BTC.T£REaCTRATt^.M NO.14374 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 9G y� j 11 I . CITY OF CHANHASSEN � 690 Coulter Drive ��� • Chanhassen, MN 55317 j)/ •I (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: AL /O,U _ OWNER: /Ay, 'kg- ( 17-4-0 WA ?a,.,U I •ADDRESS 7(2 !l (g.o 4 O6 i s ADDRESS 7 4 /3 / R. o q u t S . ' TELEPHONE (Daytime) /) zip' Code --- Zip Code 13�---3 �{� TELEPHONE REQUEST: • Zoning District Change __ Planned Unit Develo meet P rf, I • _ Zoning Appeal - Sketch Plan Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan . Final Plan I • Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting • Conditional Use Permit A Metes and Bounds Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation IWetlands Permit PROJECT NAME • 1 PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OCR 44-L 13a /VG IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION(�I47 / iti-f 1J u 'V L PRESENT ZONING _DU O,•g L4 Su id 6 /91-6 LAI ,-L1 I• REQUESTED ZONING S/ N C 0. Ai) r L4 . USES PROPOSED A ,S/ (t i G( Fi l-m 1 1, P L L f u ISIZE OF PROPERTY ,50k is J E._-+ Ati /4--- ED • LOCATION 77i g 0 )a 0( S 4-- 7C, (3 /g0 O a t s . REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST .I j x - (-., Ol-s- 0 I sz _p, 6f /if( -I-7s . i • I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) 2 o1 O «3' /L 0 0 3 :,- I , / - /� .D io - ; A' DEC 12 ld CITY OF CHANHASSEI("'• • M. ... �....•i.Ms..�f iy6.r i•4....■.-.g._ I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION G/- l CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,2i 4)t/ 690 Coulter Drive ,/ v - Chanhassen, MN 55317 I • (612) 937-1900 . - I APPLICANT: DER: •ADDRESS •� i� - � 4 !� ��� Q()�6 ! S ADDRESS 7 6 /3 / tt 0 Q U1,• l S TELEPHONE (Daytime) /�- Zi Code '-_ Zip Cod �.3 y,---i w, TELEPHONE _ - REQUEST: _ Zonis Change -'• : .. - •=_.�. g District Development It,Planned gait ' • - Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan II Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan • Final Plan I/Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision - Land Use Plan Amendment _ Platting Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds II Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation • Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME I- PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION 1)00,6-1= 13 u /(f REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION 7 j rU-fc, ru.r0 unit." PRESENT ZONING _DO 6,0 LPT, SU. od 6 6 Lc l/l • REQUESTED ZONING 0,/___z_____"-/ n) G L[ t L I . USES PROPOSED ) / tv G- C PI1-I2 1 / p el ,£ L---(- ! r SIZE OF PROPERTY 5cK J E---4r -i- 4c-f+ ED I • LOCATION 6/ �g0 0 0f S 4- - 7C- (3 /l� c) 0 that S REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST I S:E44%P-,41-.ZE 614it Jr-:-.5 li LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) II Low oo 3" 9u< 0 0 3 .: / t ice/ -D -Pn. /� r DEC 12 Bti9 . • WIDE