4. Front Yard Setback, 7307 Laredo Drive II , 4
BOA DATE: May 22, 1989
II c �TY of
■ �� C.C. :: 89. 3 CUAACASE Varianc Variance
Prepared by: Olsen/v
1
STAFF REPORT
1
I PROPOSAL: Twenty-one Foot Variance to the Required 30 Foot
Front Yard Setback.
Z
Q
IV LOCATION: Lot 9, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition
I t1� .
1.i APPLICANT: Leigh and Judy Colby
Q7307 Laredo Drive
1 Chanhassen, MN 55317
i
Ii
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
IACREAGE:
II DENSITY: c/ b:AJi ; I
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
— _.4 f
S- RSF; single family �? $ .1
Q E- RSF; single family o `:I `, woi
i
Q W- RSF; single family .% ,
A
- W WATER AND SEWER: Available to site
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains an existing single
family residence with 4 large mature
trees along the front lot line.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
--- vi -'-- 4--aLII . ' - r4 9N0 ' , ■znicrik._1 i . i
iiis maymillaja r, ro.:_IA 1
LOTUS
6900
I ar- 41Mt,•s' ■■
ta -
... - . ,
ill
;IS - --7‘,-; - 1( 11161br."4_1117"
-----7000
-sett
..,,
ii■olWolS 0 = AV • .
*1 IMO
UD—R *'[.. , 040 ...111014
LA vaga ,,,
oo c;cI.llki7440 EaQ,v l
a- P•ill./
,
lnjyloai-nlww e
\/1
4,,,s 1\41M%„N1.•„.=..0a
--7100
I
7200.- .QaftL A K E I 1I11 I
I i-
i
2 . _
730C
; zit') It7:21111=3 iniipillv;,.%
\ --_>,
•=1 ,°•wintf!Trillr.71 .,,,41110" 1
I
--II.- ,,,„
R ' - WP E ofin ridiacktr:C11. \ 's \\
ZN4 Alb. II 6.'. irilla. .4r1r1;'1'441
-_,: 7400
R 1 1*A,
iihti,a1z.'.43:Amn'Is iup
mie-l lb.1ri•iv 0:f 0 g wl9oi 1m:g2./%10/A%e,LE
mr4mivm,-.O LAs sIoe md/
eA m p r k\4:'0A onf i 112
00:
i
1, I 1 =c-1l11u111ri.t,O 11s111t11a1w1ifi1l1B1i1I1r1WRrIniIMlt R 1 2 I r.MarrE..ilo-IMM N-w-p Vg-F.'1r vi7117
Ag mir
,
--.'
I:
I cr. -gA 111PRINIM IIIIImilIM rr..,, 4 Amu _..ki, -- -- w
cr.
w 1111111111116nZIAIIIIMITipillnil t!:_344::111 _ K.- - __ . . ''.'-r
x i 111Ammil. ., Uriiii */**■■44w I k.In thrill • -- . 2 22 I
40.7/2-z, • / - 1- - ill
, ailliiiill mr__ -Mil II Milli- iiii
, W. TN Si
MIIMIE '2111 Ilir -
!It
IA p,GB
pap ---, ,,,T, 1 I la.610.-4--- - 1% iiiimf
...-0•—•1 .---- 1------
. ■
-morr.„ - - 3 1011
, ............1.
4. 1114100216
F.1 Abel!ay. ,
,. •ilar, _....iiiii- -: a .N. 61,,,,,, ert,
* IA .
-- "..a•riox - \ . .. levizri Illes
inhibusa.: I mow As( --- - , JIM •.--34 '•= .r, %.
W •gq10, t 0 eiCt
) 1 01 '_--I,N,A lii•.ft 7 i a2'N,A l kt.i ap'11.7 rolowt "*4
:1.
0 c.o
8100
; w q.■aviatipt: ca ci
, . ipg,A6V. •
(11 I
---. -" ri.` Pn. .' Alt Inv,*
. Isealk -3 - : ea
iw*
— 8200
04. ie .
- ' 1 H "I" 4. 1 641 '1. R SF - I
o•Nio%%„s...........sl
A
, --- -• .
• 0,..au II
, , \-5PrIP
..
8300 III
m
al
•■
RD
,, ,.
----cr -?/C E 'V . * SH LAKE , —
‘44
.4. ?■1 , __-_:..:---,.■ __
} 1
II
' Colby Variance
May 22 , 1989
Page 2
Applicable Regulations
' Residential Single Family District requires a front yard setback
of 30 feet.
' ANALYSIS
The applicant currently has an existing house with a two car
garage. The subject property has two driveways, one on the south
' side of the property which services the front of the house and
one on the north side of the property which services the rear of
the house and the existing garage. The applicant is requesting a
' variance to construct a second garage and deck on the western
side of the house adjacent to the front lot line. The garage
will be constructed into a hill and the deck will be constructed
along the south side of the garage at the front of the house.
The proposed addition will be 21 ' wide and will be located
approximately 9 feet from the front property line ( #1) .
Therefore, a 21 foot variance to the front yard setback is
' required.
The applicant is requesting the proposed addition so that they
have a storage area for their truck and boat which are currently
stored outside on the southerly asphalt drive. The proposed
garage and deck will be screened by existing mature vegetation
along the front property lot line and by the fact that it will be
built into an existing hill. The applicant has submitted a peti-
tion from the surrounding property owners stating that they are
in favor of the variance so that the applicant will have addi-
1 tional storage for their truck and boat ( #2) .
The applicant must prove hardship for a variance to be approved
by the Board of Adjustments or the City Council. Although the
' applicant currently has a two car garage, they are stating that
their hardship is that they have an additional truck and boat
which must be stored outside and that they and their neighbors
would prefer that the boat and truck be stored inside. The pro-
posed deck will be on the south side of the proposed garage and
will not be increasing the required setback over and above the
' garage.
RECOMMENDATION
Should the Board of Adjustments recommend approval of Variance
Request #89-3 as shown on the site plan dated May 15, 1989 , staff
is recommending the following conditions:
1 . The addition must maintain a setback of at least 9 feet from
the front lot line.
' 2 . The existing spruce and oak trees shall remain to serve as
screening of the proposed garage and deck.
NM
1
II
Colby Variance
May 22, 1989
Page 3
3. The applicant will provide grading plans and details for city
approval which shows how the trees will be preserved during
the construction of the garage and deck. '
STAFF UPDATE
On May 22, 1989 , the City Council tabled action until the City '
Council could visit the site (Attachment #5 ) . Since then, the
developer of Sunrise Hills submitted a letter stating that no
structures were permitted in the front yard ( #6) . The City
Council is not responsible for enforcement of private covenants
and restrictions. If the City Council grants the variance and
the garage-deck are constructed, then the applicant is in viola-
tion of the Sunrise Hills covenants and restrictions which is a
private legal matter.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ,
Should the City Council recommend approval of Variance Request
#89-3 as shown on the site plan dated May 15 , 1989, staff is '
recommending the following conditions :
1 . The addition must maintain a setback of at least 9 feet from
the front lot line.
2 . The existing spruce and oak trees shall remain to serve as
screening of the proposed garage and deck.
3 . The applicant will provide grading plans and details for city
approval which shows how the trees will be preserved during
the construction of the garage and deck.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site plan showing the proposed garage and deck and existing
conditions of the site.
2 . Petition from the applicant.
3 . Proposed site plan dated May 15 , 1989 .
4 . Application.
5 . City Council minutes dated May 22, 1989.
6 . Letter from Robert Scholer dated June 5 , 1989.
r
I
I
...._ ,
f• ;4*. ...,•:--`4. ...,-...,,. ,,,,*g -
I , -Vv.. •4,7. :5"
4'i:j,p,,•o-
..:,,
-22 2
" .. , i‘ .i ,•, - . 0', - - - ----'' --• ' ••••,A:--•
. . ..
,:„,. . ..
-• .. ,
_ .
_ . , 44,,,....,, 1 .. 4.•,,,.. • i
I re,
_
• . a i , • * „,•-• •
' f *
''''(„kt,c,: • * f•,.
' ! • t '
1 • .**',. , . i , .
1 .1 • i ' ," ' ' •
I } I 4 !,'.
\ • ' f p
1/! t I f .f 'I, 74'1 .' I ' •
N -
. . • ., ,.
" ' , t • • '• , s
, ! 1 i 1 I ' "I'1 7 I 1 1 I i I .
, •
• , ,
,. . .
. --, _
. ..: . • , ' , / ,,,,
I 1.---
•••> ,,,,i i,":1; • 'y'' y 'I/ ,, , `, • i
• .
, i i .,, ■ ,y ! , , '
'• . .! ' 1 ' ' , !
.•,"! J • 1...AA i,' '';" * "'
'. t*
. •
•
• . .\ .
• X. .
. .'
• .
. . . • . ,
I ... .?:-.7
M / '! • . .
' / •\37
. -
\ ' '
,,
• . f'• •:4/4,- / .0 a ,
. . ! , • - 4 / - 17 4.1.1 'I .
i. 1 . ' . ■ ' I ! .
',' III 1 j ''', ' fil../V 1.1 '■
,
,, , . - \ • .,
• 1
Or
.
. ■ ,
.1 i e ,. i r
I 0 ;,I.i•i.,1),../*' . c;17
if j,.i?/;
-•i , , i•-7 ...cilu
pi'
-0-
; . , . ••
. .
. . •\. ; : •
.1 i • i qf /7 • /• , .
-
I 0.1 : r -
,
---c- 7c ,
.
I
C7
4 4 1, ; . 1......
' 4 , 4 ) '
I , 1 I.1 q . '. . . /
':
I . . '
. !
.
. . -
' i. CR •• . ' , . 1.i 4 ' : .., i, '
. .
. 131. ii,'; 4,,1*.?• .;./;I
t 4 f• 7 ,,1 •
.I. . 1 i ., : • ;
i . „,,
1 1 C, .. 11 k
-- - - -_ _ • . . : . ' -
. . .'
■
4 •
--- -- - - - _—_
• , -.. .1 i;f'/ 4
f f 1 1 .1 4 ?VI 4. .,I,7'
! j
? :. 'I i ''' i' 1. ‘ -J
=
. - -,- -:
....-,.-.F.,_-_-_ ,_ _..:__. -_- r - -LT
---.__ii-_ _
--- ----
VI -='' 7:40
. ---je
-
—_______ _
,8 . —_-_--- _-- _- —
I i:,/ 11',a c- : ', . ' , F
ii if 1 f • •', , • f 1 - '•
,, . 1 , ' • ' ' , . , _ . ____._._ _-
- - -
I 1- ' =I=
II• • ----.--'- .G1 __________________
f i'.1 '1 '1.-•.' ' - -
•
. i ,:.
-, i
A' ...1 1 I t .4 1 1 1 --.1
..-
- -
o -
.,!', -- -_
:----......
-- N.J ._--
----
______
- VI - .
=____ ____ .. _
t: 1 I. .. . I ; i,i , :
- (Y% 4
d,, .) ,./'/;; ;:ii, . .., —
II 4.0, . ..,,,,,---1- ; ,. :., . :
4 i f
' F.: 'I .- . . 1 .
;t .,., ,--;;; 5 • 7,
iii"1 , 3',, li l'i 'l 2;.,; Cs ,..
..,
, 7c ___
It, 1
ey:
l. i ' .1 1 -1 11 i .. ) ; '9.'; 4 r .
I ) I I
'I, • ; 4 .1 ' \‘ ` 4e.....,, _
j;li li li :,"1•4 ' , 1r 1., , 1
—1 s • ,,e.......e.=:4 ,
■ , — 4-4....., , -1 ---
I
v.1
•1/ , , .I k .
. 4—
----4....4'''
.1%"
I: , ■-j•q.1„,.,;.. . .. $ 0
. >•4 i',..)1, ,I
L . , . . T., , •-r- • „-,,,-., , . .-7
!.1c! ; •I 'I "''' ' ''', .
!..
....,
I :0 f, f: i• .
• , J :i J 1 i 1'
! f 1 .•,., t - : .! 1 1 ! • , • i.... ,,,1 .-, , ,. ....i, , • , ji."---.----'
•-t.t ;; .
,
■ , 1
. . .......g%
.....r.,_:',
,,!.f • ;,.:,4 i .1 -; . , ; .: .
, 1",1,t 4, , , , 1 ''.' 't" ; , I ' , ' • ' 4. A , , ,, , 1 .. ;
,
I i; ,;1':' t •
i : ' ' ' 2 1 ' • :
; ' - • % -24,-
/ . ' *F.)'• '' • I -,
V° ' --4,
/1
I '4 I 4 ?
7 ,4
!11#i- ' ' i l 'i •
,
' ' ' T ' ' , 4
,
..,"' '' •
,■'. ... : 1*.' ' 1 , / 1
)'. i ' , r ? i • , „ \,..7.›....„.____.........i.,......-.,.....---" ,
\ :.
:::-.. \• ,.,_36
....■.'"..."-----*\--.
.• •
.' . ,„ . ' , . ._._.__„,......./"........----......"'
s.,
•
t.S.
, , • , , -,...
—,,,, t•t\ 7
< :E tr •i
■ "
--i
------ .
_...------
____----------- ; • -
TT
_---- • ' • •
......--
IN
' I
s . I
, . . PROPERTY LIST FOR CODE VARIANCE
. , 7307 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota
.', -,2-;,,.1. A, •i
I, the undersigned resident and nearby neighbor of the property
listed above agree to the following: 1) I have reviewed the I
',-, • -.- '' ,.`,--..ji blueprints and drawings for the proposed combined deck and
--,.. ,,; ', :-/double garage addition for the property at 7307 Laredo Drive; 2) I .
•
A, . ' ,, . 1 ,find the Colby's request for a variance to extend their homestead 1
on the west end of their home 21 feet towards Laredo Drive to a
. reasonable request; 3) I feel that this addition would be
. i f,.yri ,„4,'0,esthetically acceptable for the neighborhood; and 4) I would
definetly prefer this addition as compared to having the Colby's
flptol•-'';',4' 44:continue to store their truck and boat out in the open.
it , W'
. V.ko. ■
•t,
);/rl 1*
. .u
PRINTED NAME & ADDRESS WRITTEN SIGNATURE DATE -`
4* vttf*.;
erl 1:5O5 L.ail ,ch.1-. c \--Nz.- .kris._.c._ .., N■ 1
• .,
I,▪ x•li t .''',,, *'. • i ), - i f
-p,f2.1 .4 s , ../ 7=?O( 4/2A-m, r/z ,;60,-,-e-c. _....> -
/
ee I
,,,. ,-
gzzi-gge-40/2r /23t, Zig- -/Niz. g.zz_z-if1/7-
abbe 4kyd I
):44-----/t• ' , "6-6-e-iS '3 C° La'' '16)°r: litja,etit..IlLieftt 5-////1c9
I
ii-(
_ ,.
...ais A VA/ /1=-5/617-7i4,-,R Jie, /trz-v-v-„--ARIL.,--1,... -7////39 I
-:"'`• ' it: • WI 4:--r-
.
' ,
/ j ZCe( / /Zeit.' P ' )
/
I
( ---erir-Li 14-c 6r A---o-e
A • ,e -734 V 4,1t.,e/M 5//,?-7(k7
'•1?
I
°-11
,46( . 9 3 3 3 Frayvtle, rp,:d ski i?
•z.,.., 1
li
,CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Land Surveyors Eden Prairie, MN 55344
rtc uatt .: .,u I eP
Ilii"."- Survey For Leigh-Colby Book Page File 89125
7307 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, DIN 55317
1 -.
•
I .
I "'e
1 /� N
/ L1 \ `
e:q! .
� Scale: 1"=40 '
1 l
\ .
Q G
/ a
�a z ' I:o
Yv.� b VI,
Q/ 1 % / , a
C ry0p
.'j"):- - -- — —% /
B.T. / Drive i /h
Lt -- - -- - - i' 1 /ri
' Fd / 75.1 / Fe!
VLP' - --200-- - ZP
I .
MN IS1Iq
1 _..
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey
I of the boundaries of Lot 9, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Add.
Hennepin County, Minnesota, and of the location of all buildings thereon,
i ' and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on s- • land rveyed by me
this 10th day of D'.ay , 19 89.
I CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Rev 5-'2. Bj by �_
Phone: (612) 941-3031 Stat RPa. No. {Q S';1f3
,
•
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
C
1 II
ITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900 - I
APPLICANT: +3h q ..)I,I CoI / OWNER: SA (hi E
ADDRESS '730'7 1„142EDd 0211/C_ ADDRESS - '
eH44-/H sSEn1 .--;7 3/177
Zip Code Zip I
TELEPHONE (Daytime) / y ,c 7')y C- .. TELEPHONE 3 y 67O1.7 / Code
REQUEST:
- _-
*
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan I
_ Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance
� Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision ,
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
I
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation
I
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME
I
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION I
PRESENT ZONING
• REQUESTED ZONING I
USES PROPOSED 1
SIZE OF PROPERTY
LOCATION - , `( 9 ;,.;-C- LEI,IL / tiSC r.-L-f-v-e e2e; /s''' ( 0:( I
• REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST ,,-4 ,<7.:2-,i,,c,L%ei' ? ''c_-_ r c
,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
....-• 1-•• ;.--4..• ewe....
II City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
I Page 2
II FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
I 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 City Planner
II ato determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
pplicable to your application .
II FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
I applicable City Ordinances .
ISigned B� - lL - ! C� �y,� }
Date ------7272- /S
/j" Applicant/ _ / l l-�
IThe undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
I
-
F
Signed By
Iee Owner Date
I
IIDate Application Received
Application Fee Paid
ICity Receipt No. ,
1
* This Application will be considered b
I Board of Adjustments and A y the Planning Commission/
meeting. Ppeals at their
•
I
, . ..4 • -r- r - y••••••■
MN
Sr
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY. I
Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments met before the City Council and two
I
voted for denial of the variance and one voted in favor of it. The applicant is
requesting a 21 foot front yard variance to the front yard setback for an
additional garage and deck. I've got a blueprint that you can pass down to show
the whole property because I don't have the visual.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Is Judy Colby here?
Leigh Colby: Our home was built on a rather unusually shaped piece of property. I
It's not the normal rectangular shape that most of the homes have and what is
legally defined as a front yard really is our back yard and that's how we use
II
the area where we hope to have a combined deck and garage. The plans that we're
working off of were actually drawn up 10 years ago from previous owners and is
designed so the face of the house is continuous. It's designed to look
naturally as part of the house but what you should look at very closely is the
II
fact that part of the garage unit, the northwest corner, actually comes over the
line and that's what we're asking for a variance on. From the street we've got
3 very large evergreen trees. You cannot see the house from the street so this
II
is a very private area. Add to the fact that this, Laredo Drive is a dead end
and it really is a very private area. That's why we use it as a back yard in
terms of the way the house is laid out. In terms of why we want the garage, we
Ihave no place to put one of our vehicles and a boat and with our 15 year old, we
would expect to have another car and want to be able to store that also so those
Iright now are sitting outside. That's the reason for the request for the
garage. The garage that we have is very small. It's a tuck under and it was
II
built in 1961. I don't know if you've been in a garage that's about 17 feet
wide but fortunately they're making cars smaller these days. We did ask at the
earlier meeting tonight if they've granted waivers of this in the past and
II
apparently they have so I don't really think that we're asking for much of a
variance.
Judy Colby: We're asking for a front yard setback but it's to the side of our I
house so if you will imagine your house and wanting to put in a garage, and it's
a tuck under garage so it goes into the dirt. We have to excavate the dirt out.
If you imagine putting that on the side of your house and a deck on top of it
II
and no one will be able to see that, and like he mentioned, our garage is so
small we get two vehicles in but nothing else so our recreation room now has
become for the bikes and the sleds and everything else. But I went around the II whole cul-de-sac to all the homes within 500 feet and everyone signed because
they don't want our boat and our truck up in the front of our yard as we don't.
We would like to get that i.n. And when we purchased the house, it's part of an
association that has that beachlot so we don' t have a place to dock a boat so
II
you have to keep your boat on your premises. You can't keep it down at the lake
but we have a beachlot and a place to put the boat in. Then also we saw these
plans that you saw, plans that were drawn up by the people before we purchased
II
the house so when we saw those plans, we never assumed there'd be any problem
adding a garage on there for our extra vehicle and boat. Then when we found out
that yes, it's the side of your house but it's the front yard, we said no. It's
i not the front yard. This is the front yard so it just doesn't seem like, and we II
I got all the signatures in the neighborhood. There was no on opposed. In face
we probably have a couple neighbors right now saying please let than put their
truck in the garage. I
25
II
mil
IICity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Mayor_ Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: Well I do have one. Are ou aware o
Association?
Y of the covenants of the
' Leigh Colby: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: Are there any covenants in there about setbacks?
Leigh Colby: Not that I'm aware of. Most of the covenants have to do with
building sheds and that sort of thing. Detached from the house. I'm not aware
of any other.
Judy Colby: We did ask the treasurer to look into that and they didn't find
' anything.
Mayor Chmiel: I did take a look at your location. You're at a cul-de-sac
' portion and it's a dead end road basically other than the other access to the
residences there. I did notice a boat out in front in your first driveway as
you come down. Of course there was one car in the garage at the time. Probably
the second one was coming home.
' Judy Colby: The truck's being used by a friend. I wish that would have been in
the driveway for you.
' Leigh Colby: You would have understood. It's 20 years old.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're looking for basically is a 21 foot variance
' to the front yard setback which is required. The proposed addition is going to
be 21 feet wide, is that correct?
' Leigh Colby: That's right. And driving down the hill, the only thing you would
see coming down Laredo to the cul-de-sac is the redwood deck. You would not
actually see the garage. That would be about a foot above ground level and most
of that would sheltered by the trees.
Councilman Johnson: I don't remember in the past 2 1/2 years granting any 21
foot variances to front yard setbacks.
Judy Colby: For the side of a house?
' Councilman Johnson: To a front yard setback to where we're getting within 9
foot of the street right-of-way. In a PUD we've gone to 5 feet from the street
right-of-way. It's a bad precedence to start. I don't see the hardship.
Because you own an ugly truck is not a hardship. I sold my ugly truck. Of
' course it didn' t run. Your's obviously runs since you loaned it to somebody.
Leigh Colby: I think you saw the property, you would understand that you cannot
' see it. I mean you cannot see it.
Judy Colby: And the 9 foot, what you're talking about is you've got quite a few
' feel back to these huge trees and then there's this space which is dead so if
that's our front yard, if you want to call it our front yard, you're stopping us
' 26
■
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
from using our front yard because you want more feet to do with I don't know
1 what you'll do because you'd have plenty of room for a sidewalk in front of
those trees.
Councilman Johnson: That's the only place you could put it on city property.
Judy Colby: Right, and you have plenty of room without touching our trees there '
to put a sidewalk. I can't imagine what other use you'd have for that. Those
trees will remain.
Councilman Johnson: Unless we have a spruce disease and the trees die and then
we've got a house...
Judy Colby: Then we'll put a different tree in because we want the privacy.
Leigh Colby: That's part of the plan is that the trees provide some privacy.
We have absolutely no other place on the property that we can expand in any way
because of the unusual orientation.
Mayor Chmi.el: You have a pie shaped lot basically. '
Leigh Colby: Yes. It should have been a smaller 2 story home turned the right
way. '
Councilman Johnson: We shouldn't have approved the pie shaped lot 20 years ago
or whenever either. We don't approve those anymore or try not to. I still,
when we grant one, everybody comes in and says, well you di.d it for these folks
and we want exactly the same thing. Then it gets kind of like potato chips or
whatever. You had one, somebody else wants another. It just keeps going.
Judy Colby: I think it's been obvious that the variance must have been granted
to some people though because you haven't gone along those 5 restrictions that
you have to prove and that's what we were told. And there was this drawing that
we saw that we assumed we could do. That was an assumption and that was our
fault for not checking into it but when you see the architectural drawing of
something, when you're buying a house then you think, well good, then we don't
have to store something in our front yard. Like I said, our regular garage is
so small that we literally get 2 cars in only. Imagine your garage, if you have
a normal house, and not being able to store anything but 2 cars in there.
Councilman Johnson: When did you buy this?
Leigh Colby: 3 years ago. '
Councilman Johnson: And at that time you were expecting to build onto the
garage as part of it and you didn't check to see if you could?
Judy Colby: Well we just did now when we were going to add to it. By the look
of it we thought we had plenty of feet from the side of the house and I di.d call
and ask what was a variance from the side of the house and I said oh well we're
fine. Then when the contractors came out to give us some bids and they said
well no, this is the street, you've got to be 60 feet from the middle of the
road. We measured and we were 10 feet into the setback at that point but I
guess that 60 feet isn' t right now.
27
6D
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yes, it's 30 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the
property line.
[-
Leigh Colby: I think if you would have seen the property, you would understand
that you can not...
Councilman Johnson: I'm friends with our next door neighbors.ghbors. I ve been down
on your block many times.
' Leigh Colby: And if the restriction is that we also maintain trees along there,
even if they're knocked down, I'm more than happy to comply with that because
' that's what we'd do anyhow.
Councilman Johnson: And when you get transferred to Arizona next year and the
new neighbor's in there and he doesn't like the view of the trees, he cuts than
' down. The ordinance is for protection for the long term. It's just like we're
talking about covenants before. Once you leave, they're unenforceable and
everybody says no, I'm going to live there until I die.
' Leigh Colby: I think most ordinances are written with common sense in mind and
everybody who's walked it off agrees that aesthetically it really fits in. It
' really is a common sense issue.
Councilman Johnson: And we've turned down other things that appear to be common
sense and aesthetically beneficial.
Judy Colby: Have you approved things that don't have any common sense behind
it?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, because by law we had to.
Councilwoman Dimler: I also looked at the property. I guess my impression was
' that that was the side yard. I've always thought of that as the side yard and
so I was surprised that by legal description it was the front yard. I think
they meet 3 of the 5 conditions and I would be in favor of granting this
particular variance because Laredo ends in a circle and there's a lake behind
it. It will never go further. I can't see anything that we would want to do to
the street that we couldn't do that would be injurious to city property.
Leigh Colby: You're not going to make it a four lane?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, it's never going to be four lane.
Councilman Johnson: Ursual, can I ask you a question? If you're going to
consider this a side yard, they'll still need a side yard variance if this was a
' side yard because they're going 1 foot in.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they meet that.
' Councilman Johnson: No they don't. It's a 10 foot side yard setback I think so
they would need a 1 foot variance. If they can cut this back 1 foot, they could
meet the side yard.
' 28
MI
; 'City Council Meeting - May 22; 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: We talked about this at the Board of Adjustment and I
Appeals and there is room for a sidewalk or a trail or whatever we might want to
I put in there. Then also, the trees are there that you can't see it from the
! road. II
Councilman Johnson: But they could also cut it back to a 20 foot instead of 21
foot and meet the side yard setback if you want to call this a side yard. II
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine, if that's what you want.
Leigh Colby: It would just be that one tip. So you're saying, if I bevel the II
notch, bevel the one corner then I'll comply. -
Judy Colby: Because the road curves out there so our only problem with be down II
..in the corner.;,:-: .a -. 1 ._ . _ - . ._. ._
_• Councilman Johnson: If you're going to grant a variance to this, I think one of II
: .the logical ways to do it, if you..want to make it to where other people can't
:copy it, is to say in essence this is"a side yard and they would not need a side
yard variance so you would have to modify it where you would not need a side
II
= yard variance. --I have a little trouble calling ita side yard since it's up
against a street but I think you'll probably muster the votes to grant this
somehow or another without- me but I'm going to continue what I continued 2 years
II
ago of not liking variances. I'll still give you my ideas on, if I hadn't taken
this stand 2 years ago that I wouldn't grant variances unless there was a real
hardship shown, I don't see the hardship here. Sorry to interrupt you.
IICouncilwoman Di.mler: That's okay, you do all the time.
I._ _
Councilman Workman: I apologize because I was unable to get out there today. I
- You were on my schedule and the hours turned into minutes very quickly. I would
like to get out there to see it. I don't obviously have a hard and fast rule
towards variances. I think one of the reasons Ursula's on the Council is II.because she's open minded and can look at things in practical ways. Not that we
:need to give them to everybody but to look at it. I guess I would like to look
.:at it-a little closer than from a piece of paper which is what I have done so
-far. I apologize again. So not to delay your construction time or anything I
II
:guess I'd like to see this tabled so that I might have an opportunity to get out
- there. Perhaps talk to Willard and Carol and get some more input.
._;_Councilman Boyt: Before you consider. tabling, I'd like to comment on this. II
There are, for the benefit of the rest of the people out there who may be
•wondering what's going on, ordinances are written through a rather lengthy
process of public hearings and trying to clearly define what the concerns are II
and meet those concerns with a particular ordinance. State statute makes it
very difficult to vary from an ordinance unless you want to rewrite it and go
through the public hearing process again. A variance is changing an ordinance
II
so there's 5 criteria because if we grant a variance as Judy and Leigh have
pointed out, you've granted variances in the past like this, I expect you to
grant it for me. I can assure you that if any one of you comes in here with a
I
similar kind of problem and the need to move 21 feet into your front yard
! setback, you're going to reference this case and say tell me what's different.
So every time we do this, the State says you're supposed to follow the 5
criteria that they set up. This, by no stretch of the imagination matches those II
29 '
` li
IICity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
criteria and I would suggest that if the Council insists upon passing this, that
you best direct the City Attorney to find facts that support you.
II
[-
Leigh Colby: Bill, you said that this sets aside an ordinance. In effect
negates it and most ordinances are written to cover a multitude of things but
' they can't address every unique circumstance and a variance is not a set aside
but acknowledging that not all circumstances are quite what was anticipated when
the ordinance was written.
' Councilman Boyt: Leigh, I agree with you but, you've clearly got some crowd
support here. One of the 5 criteria is that you have a unique situation.
That's 1 of the 5 and as I mentioned earlier when I attended the meeting, I
' agree that you have a unique piece of land. Being a pie shaped piece of
property but you have a house that meets all city codes including the need for a
garage on that piece of property and that's all the City guarantees when they
give a person a building permit is that your house will meet our codes. Now to
go beyond that and say well but we'll give you the right to extend into any of
those setbacks, if you meet the other criteria, then yes we need to have sort of
flexibility to do it. One of the other pieces of criteria is that this is not a
' self-created hardship. I don't see how you can define your own purchases as
not being self-created. They weren't acts of God. They weren't things that
were out of your control. There is another one of the criteria is that it not
' be injurous to your neighborhood. I think you've demonstrated that your
neighbors feel this is not injurous. The ones I've talked to agree that they
don't see this as injurous to them.
Leigh Colby: Most of them see it as an upgrade.
Councilman Boyt: And it quite well could be in that regard. The other is that
' you need to have a situation which is a hardship. Not an economic hardship but
something that you can't overcome. That there's no way to overcome it. I don't
think that since your house already meets City Codes, I don't think there's
' anything there that you need to overcome. Where we have adjusted these in the
past has been when somebody has been on a lake lot. They didn't have a garage.
They wanted a garage. City Code requires a garage and we gave them the right to
build into that front yard setback to do that. You don't have that situation
' Leigh. There is a quandry here. I'm sure when Tom goes out and looks at this
he's going to say, well in your individual situation it looks like a pretty low
impact thing. If the Council votes to approve this, I don't see how they can
turn down anybody's request who comes in and says I want to extend my house. I'm
going to have another child. I need another bedroom and so what if it goes 21
feet into my setback from the front street. I'll put trees up. I don't see how
we could turn that down and be fair.
Judy Colby: Look at my house and say that that's not the front of my house.
It's the side of my home.
' Councilman Boyt: It's legally defined.
Judy Colby: But it's the side of my house and I want to add onto the side of my
house.
Councilman Boyt: Well you're adding onto the side of your house that projects
to the front street.
' 30
IICity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
II
Leigh Colby: What I would recommend is that we table this. I think if you take
a look at it, you'll find out it really would be a very tasetful addition. ,
Mayor_ Chmiel: I think we're at that particular point for Tom to really take a
look and review this. I'd like to second that motion to table it.
Councilman Workman: I guess if I could make one more comment. vote
already been My ote has
Y predicted I guess. If in fact a variance is always going to be a
precedented situation, then I'm going to assume that if you have any space
behind your yard, it will probably be condemned by Bill Boyt for a park very
soon so to set precedence. I would like to take it on a parcel by parcel basis
and that's what I intend to do. I do move to table.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm seconding that.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the front yard setback
variance request for 7307 Laredo Drive until the next City Council meeting.
Boyt who opposed All
voted in favor except Councilman Bo ,
Y pposed and the motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND WEST OF POWERS BLVD., ECKANKAR CHURCH, PETER BECK.
Peter Beck: Mr_. Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Avenue
South representing Eckankar. We have nothing much to add Mr. Mayor_ to the
proceedings of the earlier meetings except to summarize what we have done in
response to the Council's request at the last meeting. Everything that I'm
going to cover tonight is addressed in the letter which we delivered and I I
believe is in your packet dated May 17, 1989 but perhaps for the benefit of
those in the audience I'll just briefly review the steps we have taken in the
last month. The City Council requested that a baseline environmental study be
done of those portions of the property encompassing the former farmsteads and
then the proposed development site for the church. What we did in response to
that request was retain the firm of Protox Inc. to conduct such an environmental
site assessment. In fact we directed them to cover the entire property in this
assessment. Their study was, we asked them as the experts to recommend to us an
appropriate study for this piece of property and under the circumstances and
then we met on site with city officials including the City Planner and Public
Safety Director to insure that the proposed scope was adequate and appropriate
and acceptable to the City. After that point then we contracted with Protox and
they conducted a study. Although I'll summarize briefly their findings, the
entire report that they submitted to us has been submitted to the City. The
study included a visual and magnetometer survey of the entire property with
special emphasis on the two farmstead sites and the proposed development site.
The study also included subsurface soil vapor sampling at any location which the
magnetometer or the visual survey indicated warranted further investigation.
Then also a number of other randomly selected samples. The results of the study
were that there was no evidence of any contamination anywhere on the property
and that the construction activities as proposed can proceed without danger of
environmental contamination from hazardous materials. Protox did recommend that
3 wells on the property be abandoned. That an underground storage tank
discovered next to where an old shed was on the south farm, be removed. That a
31 '
I .
ROBERT A. SCHOLER
Real Estate and Construction
1
June 5 , 1989
' Leigh and Judy Colby
7307 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear Mr & Mrs Colby:
' Re: Lot 9 Block 1 Sunrise Hills 1st Addn.
Our conversation at the recent progressive dinner prompts me
' to send you a copy of the deed restrictions in Sunrise Hills
1st Addn.
These restrictions were placed on all lots in your
subdivision when the plat was filed and all deeds are given
' subject to those restrictions .
In the early days of Chanhassen there were few ordinances to
protect the property values of homeowners against abuses by -
' their neighbors , and so the need for these restrictive
covenants .
They cannot be revoked and the City of Chanhassen cannot
' issue variances to them.
I am sympathetic to your wishes but there is nothing I can
do except ask that you observe the covenants .
Wa5m Regards;'
fl jile
' Bob Scholer
cc: City of Chanhassen
1
' 7212 Frontier Trail • Chanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 934-8008
II
Restrictions - Sunrise Hills, 1st Addition
1. All lots shall be known, used, and described as residential lots. No structure
shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot in said plat
other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in heighth
with attached private garage, except as hereafter provided.
2. All garages must be within the dwelling or attached to the dwelling either di-
rectly or by breezeway or other part of dwelling.
3. No shed, shops, or outbuildings of any kind which may be considered unsightly
or objectionable to other residents of said Addition may be erected at any time.
This restriction, however, shall not preclude the construction of sightly or attract-
ive structures for the comfort or enjoyment of owners of the dwelling and his family,
including such structures as non-commercial family greenhouses, playhouses, and
children's play equipment.
4. No structure of a temporary character shall be used as a residence at any time. '
5. All buildings hereafter proposed for said Sunrise Hills 1st Addition must be e-
rected by Robert A. Scholer or his assigns.
6. No building shall be located nearer than 40 feet from the front lot line.
7. No building shall be closer to side lot lines than 12 feet. '
8. The minimum swuare foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway or porches, of
any one-story dwelling shall be 1 ,000 square feet, and of any one and one-half and
two-story dwelling, shall be 1 ,200 square feet, and in case of the latter, both
floors must be finished. The minimum swuare foot area, exclusive of garage and
breezeway or porches, of any dwelling located on a lot with lakeshore frontage shall
be 1 ,200 square feet.
9. The exterior of any dwelling placed on any lot in said Addition shall be covered
with stone, wood, brick, or stucco; and all exterior woodwork must be painted, var-
nished, or stained. The exterior of any dwelling must be finished immediately and
must not be allowed to remain unfinished in any part for more than 6 months from the
date of the beginning of said construction.
10. No building shall be constructed of concrete blocks or of cinder block construc-
tion. '
11. No second-hand materials may be used for any construction.
12. No building may be moved onto any lot. '
13. No dogs shall be kept in said Addition except those confined strictly to the
owner's property and kept on leash or in control of the owner at all times. Dogs
which are habitually noisy shall be deemed a nuisance and may be eliminated from the
area.
14. No cows, goats, or any domestic or other animal, poultry, or fowl of any kind 1
shall be kept in said Addition except dogs and cats, and the keeping of dogs shall
be subject to regulation set forth in the preceding paragraph.
15. No commercial activity of any kind shall be undertaken and carried on upon any
lot in said Addition, but this restriction shall not preclude the pursuit of hobbies
.1
a
II
' which are wholly confined within the
Y dwelling and which are not offensive or of a
kind which in any way becomes an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
' 16. Each owner of any lot shall have the right to use the playground area, provid-
ed by the above-named Robert A. Scholer and Celine R. Scholer for the benefit of
purchasers of lots in said Addition, for access to and from Lotus Lake by foot. Use
of boat slips and channel shall be subject to nominal charge for installation, maint-
enance, and upkeep thereof. No private docks shall be erected on or from the area
' playground and beach. No buildings shall be erected on the area playground and beach
without the permission of Robert A. Scholer. Any and all maintenance and improve-
ment of and in said area playground and beach shall be made at the expense of the
owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills 1st Addition.
17. Landscaping of any lot on which a swelling has been constructed shall be com-
pleted forthwith upon completion of dwelling construction.
18. Robert A. Scholer reserves the right and privilege to regrade any of said lots
owned by him and improve the same by enlarging said lots by consolidating two or
' more lots or any part of any lots, but in no event to reduce the size of final build-
ing sites from the sizes of lots now established.
I
1