7. Variances to the front, side and rear setbacks for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd I ,.,
7
i ,.,
CITYOF
C 1
ANHASSEN
1 ..
I �� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
t
L,/ /...1-oz
IIMEMORANDUM . -- - -_ _,._
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals .1I,nAil
I FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director
wic ...m...ie, :. ___
IDATE: March 8 , 1989 Z 7 _.";T__-,-
SUBJ: Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence
I Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks
#89-1 Variance
This application was presented to the Board of Adjustments at
1 their meeting of February 27, 1989 . At that time the item was
tabled by the Board of Adjustment. This item was tabled for two
reasons . First of all, the Board felt that the variances seemed
II to be excessive for the piece of property and the building that
was being proposed. The second reason was to request staff to
look at other variances along Lake Riley Boulevard and provide a
summary of what variances have been allowed in that area.
I
In response to the first reason, the applicant has submitted
revised plans for the property. The changes to the requested
1 setback variances are as follows .
Front setback - To be 17 feet at the closest point from the
I front property line. The driveway itself would be 182 feet long
at its shortest point and 21 feet long at the longest point be-
tween garage and the edge of the right-of-way. These distances
are adequate to allow vehicles to pull off the right-of-way and
Ipark in front of the garage.
Side Setback East Side - The required setback is 10 feet.
I Previously, the applicant had asked for a 5 foot variance on the
east side. The revised plans show the required 10 foot setback
on the east side. No variance would be required on the east edge
Iof the property. setback Setback West Side - s
The required etback is 10 feet. The
original plan submitted showed a 1 foot setback from the property
I line to the edge of the deck and a 6 foot setback from the prop-
erty line to the edge of the house. After the staff report was
written, the applicant had submitted a revised plan dated
I February 22, 1989, which showed a 10 foot setback on the west
property for the house and a 6 foot setback for the deck. The
I
I/
Board of Adjustments
March 8 , 1989
Page 2
latest revised plan dated March 6 , 1989 , on the west side indica-
tes a 5 foot setback from the property for the building as well
as the deck. This results in a 5 foot variance to the side yard
setback on the west side of the property. Previously, the appli-
cant had noted the potential for doing a land trade with the
adjacent property owner on the west to align their property line
with the existing fence on the west side of the property. If the
properties were to agree to move the lot line over to the
existing chain link fence, the resulting setback on the west side
at the closest point to the building would increase to approxima-
tely 7z feet.
Rear Setback - The required setback along Lake Riley is 75 feet '
from the high water mark. The applicants have revised their
building plans to eliminate the porch on the rear of the building
which on the previous plan encroached into the 75 foot setback.
The latest plan shows the rear of the structure being right on
the 75 foot setback and a 10 foot deck extending into the 75 foot
setback along the rear of the property. The deck is considered a
structure and would require a 10 foot variance to the rear yard
setback for its construction.
Lot Coverage - This lot is approximately 7 ,500 square feet. The
maximum lot coverage in the RSF District is 25% . This translate
to 1 , 875 square feet that can be devoted to lot coverage on the
property. Lot coverage includes all impervious surfaces which
covers the structure as well as driveways, sidewalks and decks.
If the applicant were to meet all setbacks for the lot, the area
which could be built on would cover an area of approximately
1 , 380 square feet. Then you would also need to add in, at a
minimum, a driveway to serve the structure, assuming a two car
garage, a 30 foot setback and a 16 foot wide drive, we would have
another 480 feet added onto that figure. That would bring the
total up to 1 ,860 square feet. This would comply with the maxi-
mum coverage requirement of the code.
Lot coverage for the proposed home based on the plan dated March
6 , 1989 , breaks out as follows.
Deck 330 sq. ft. '
Driveway 320 sq. ft.
Sidewalk and front stoop 100 sq. ft.
Proposed Building Footprint 1 , 650 sq. ft.
(garage included)
Total 2 , 400 sq. ft.
This total , 2 , 400 square feet, is approximately 525 square feet '
larger than the maximum allowable lot coverage for this piece of
property.
It
Board of Adjustments
March 8 , 1989
Page 3
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30 foot
' front yard setback to allow for a 17 foot setback. They are
asking for a side yard setback of 5 feet on the west side from
the required 10 feet. They are requesting a variance to the 75
foot rear yard setback from the lake for a 10 foot encroachment
for a deck on the rear of the home. Lastly, they are requesting
a lot coverage variance of approximately 525 square feet over
what is allowed.
The second item requested by the Board of Adjustment was a sum-
mary of other variances that have been granted along Lake Riley
' Boulevard. These are summarized below, however, staff would
advise the Board of Adjustment that each application is to be
considered on its own merits and the unique characteristics that
may apply to a particular lot or circumstance.
' Case
1 82-9 Variance 9239 Lake Riley Boulevard
In this particular case, the applicant was granted a 5 foot side
yard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance.
86-1 Variance 9235 Lake Riley Boulevard
In this case, the variance approved for the property was to allow
a single family residence to be 50 feet from the southerly ordi-
nary high water mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinance high
water mark.
These are the two variances that staff has identified on Lake
Riley Boulevard in this particular neighborhood. Also, there was
' another area that people have mentioned, which was a reconstruc-
tion on an existing foundation footprint. This particular pro-
perty does not meet setback requirements but plans were approved
under a section of the code which allows for the improvement of
an existing structure as long as that footprint is not extended
beyond what was there previously. This does not require the
' owner to come before the Board of Adjustments for a variance to
improve that existing structure.
In order for the Board of Adjustments to grant the variances as
requested by the applicant, the Board still needs to make
findings that the application satisfies the five criteria. While
the applicant' s revised plans are an improvement over what they
had requested previously, the issue remains, is there a hardship
that is not self-imposed, are the variances necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of property rights on this parcel, and
third, are the circumstances self-imposed or a result of a unique
' situation?
I
Board of Adjustments '
March 8 , 1989
Page 4
This is the determination that the Board of Adjustment needs to
make in reviewing this particular request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report for BOA Hearing on February 27 , 1989 .
2 . Revised plot plan dated March 6 , 1989 , showing setbacks as
proposed.
3 . Revised plot plan showing the proposed structure overlayed on
existing improvements on property.
4 . Letter from applicant dated February 28 , 1989 .
5 . Letter from adjacent property owner dated February 2 , 1989.
1
I
■
1 -
C I T Y O F BOA DATE: Feb. 27, 1989
C.C. DATE:
CUAA7 :Y SS�
CASE NO: 89-1 Variance
1 . ,1
Prepared by: Hanson/v#
I -
STAFF REPORT
1 PROPOSAL: Variance for Construction of
a Single Family Residence
Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side
1 Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage
z
I (<5
LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley
Boulevard
I U.
I..— APPLICANT: V D i,d
Q James & Mary Ellen Jessup
1 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317 2..-a3 -&9
1 K .
— /-6 Lt
IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: . 17 acres ( 7, 500 + s . f. )
1 DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
IIAND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; residential single family
Q S- RD; Lake Riley
I1 E- RSF; residential single family
II in W- RSF; residential single family
W WATER AND SEWER:
Municipal services are available
1
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site slopes to lake
II2000
LAND USE PLAN: Residential
II
._,... ;A.1
7 86 TM ST f
Pa 86001-8600'
is
: :
o;-
Jr
8700
RSF.
Z -
_ ' - R 1 2 8800 '
1
POND
I
•
LL F
Q , . .1
8900
I
1� VT
o
va Ro R. le .� ,f _ _. •
C..._) -'21) 9000 •
RD
I ~ ,, '.'_ 910 0
A2 ` ~
L PUD � 1
VOI:attEl :
_ -- :, rot4,4.w` /if 9 200 1 A i rfr;rfr i fj L AK E
Er 411 \. ,"` 9300
r
'
9' -.t-� �� R/LEY
I9400
:-.;..f.
NO° . -_ \-_\,,
--� _ 9500
II
1
, P
.• 9600
\ .
I
>/ _ '
�"
POND X
9700 I
•
e/`)-'
/ Lj /t
.J �` ) 9800=0 1
/ -
J�
fr► 1
100
Qv 200 1
- ._. ci 300
II Jessup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 2
II
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES
IIRSF Existing Existin g Proposed osed Pro osed
p
Description Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance
IFront Setback 30 ' 20 ' -10 ' 20 ' -10 '
' Side ( east) 10 ' 6 . 8 ' - 3 . 2 ' 5 ' - 5 '
Side (west) 10 ' -2 . 5 ' -12. 5 ' 1 ' - 9 '
IRear 75 ' 78 ' + 3 ' 61 ' -14 '
Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9%
II Coverage
I The applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements
of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the
property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set-
back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of
I Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864. 5 . The survey of the
property does not include the elevation so the exact location of
the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears
to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to
encroach into the setback 14 feet.
I The side setback (west) is requested to be 1 foot. The existing
garage on the property is located 2 . - feet off the property. The
other side setback ( east) is presently 6 . 8 feet and the proposal
is for this to be 5 feet at the garage and 10 feet along the
II side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the
garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also,
the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would
I help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed
and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor-
ners of the house would be out of the setback.
II The front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and this is con-
sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard and this
neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car to park in
l the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck
and porch would bring this into compliance with code require-
ments .
The lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant
increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the
deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conformance with
Ithis requirement.
II
il_
I
-essup Variance
February 27 , 1989
Page 3
The zoning code provides five findings that the Board of
Adjustments and ?appeals must make in order to grant the variance
request. These criteria and staff analysis are as follows :
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty. '
* The literal enforcement of this chapter would not preclude
use of the property, however, enforcement of the front set-
back
would require a setback which is not characteristic of
the homes east of this lot on the lake side of Lake Riley
Boulevard.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands of structures in the same district.
* special conditions are that this lot is narrower and
smaller than would be required under the present codes if
it were to be created now. The question is can the lot be
developed and comply with code requirements, and the answer
is yes , the lot could be developed but not with a home of
the size that is proposed.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
* The property could be developed without the variances
although the house would have to have a smaller foot print.
mhe granting of the front yard variance allows some flexi-
bility and is in keeping with the lots to the east.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self-created hardship.
* The home to be built is a new home and it is difficult to '
say that non-compliance with the setbacks is not self-
imposed. The present zoning was in effect when the owners
purchased the property and there has been no change in
requirements .
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
* The front setback is in character. Some side yard setbacks
may be appropriate but a 90% reduction on the side and 50%
on the other indicates the structure is simply to large for
the site. This is further noted by the proposed lot
I
-essup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 4
coverage of 34% versus the code requirement of 25% . The
encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not
something the city has allowed except in unique areas .
RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals not approve
the variances as proposed based on findings that the request does
' not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff
recommends the Board adopt the following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed
' variances for Variance Request #89-1, James Jessup, 9247 Lake
Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side
yard setbacks, rear yard setback and maximum lot cover of the
^ity Code based on the following findings :
1 . Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac-
tical difficulty.
2 . The variances are not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights .
' q . The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size
and design of the proposed structures.
' ATTACHMENTS
1 . Letter from applicant dated February 20 , 1989 .
2 . Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989
. Application.
3 . Existing plot plan.
4 . Proposed plot plan.
1
1
1
February 20, 1989
Board of Adjustment i
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 5531
RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Board:
I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear,
and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake
Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the
lake. It was platted decades ago therefore is not upto current
standards of lot size.
The current situation is that a one story structure exists there '
now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the
seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car
garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from
HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
remodel and add stories to obtain adequate spacce.
I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is ,
to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use.
Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This
alternative would require building a structure three stories tall
and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the '
setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing
conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
tradeoff for heighth versus width is perferable.
CITY OF CHANHACCll; ,
•
FEB 21 1989
CHANHASSEN P!",1IN NC DEPT.
i
IIThe literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build
a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor
omprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The
eighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual
impact of a tall structure. i find the idea not appealing also.
the situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted many decades
go. The lot is pie-shaped and not to current standards. The
etback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These
conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow
IFe enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
omes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is
otally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The
home on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year.
lithe planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The
/Variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health,
safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of
the current structure and like the idea of a new structure.
I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and
liook forward to starting construction this Spring.
incerely,
lames F. Jessup
roperty owner of
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY QF CHANN4SSEN
February 21, 1989 n G`EM
Board of Adjustment FEB 't 1989" 1
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 5531 ENGINEERS DEPT
RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Lrf1fl� Y �"
Dear Board: 1
The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake
residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide
me long term residence.
I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear,
and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts onto Lake
Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the
lake.
The current situation is that a one story structure exists there '
now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the
seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car
garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from
HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too
small and narrow by current standards.
I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is
to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use.
Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This '
alternative would require building a structure three stories tall
and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the
setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing
conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
tradeoff for height versus width is preferable. 1
The request for variances is consistent with other lake
properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine
have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property
line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore
Acres, was recently granted twenty-five and forty feet variances
for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is
being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the
■
lake or side yard.
The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build
a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor
comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The
' neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual
impact of a tall structure. The situation is peculiar to my lot as
it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie-shaped. It is too
' narrow and too small in square footage by current standards. The
setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These
conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow
' me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is
totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The
home on the west side was recently remodeled and enlarged. The
' planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances
will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current
structure and like the idea of a new structure.
I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and
' look forward to starting construction this Spring.
Sincerely,
' James Jessup
resident/property owner of
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
1
< A u er tl rica re
74
n
/ R
RAILROAD flf
RETdINING WALL / / s9.4O,
/ ?' DOS
o •JO w'
b /
/ I
J� /
GPI :// N
NI
of / .� /0 5.6
fo
/ N 6,
.ti
/ ` /LIMP-viti e.
/
1
I 1
,_ ,
_....
_:__,
1 , ,
1
I
,.....;
I' EXISTING I
FENCE LINK
3
O -^ I Kl rGde.1.1
N I
o N I
-/ /
Par,,ti /
EXISTING ( / I
CHAIN LINK
FENCE
WEST INE OF THE S.E.I/4
OF SE ION 24, T 116 N.,R 23 W,
...„-5-.ACCOR NG TO THE RECORD PLAT O
OF SH RE ACRES I
k -
�: h
if .4' JY 1
.z.
I
6 B -
46),,v.-46),,v.- ,--,) /6 1 k
}
/ . ,
'T 6)°35 Op
3g•
SU�''F 4y E
Y
<iyf ,f
:, II
I
l 40
N /
4 .,*, /
�� wh
<qk � ., y�\
f?„ --_----.._
■
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: 3,1rne (Li e 12. OWNER: J1 6 F. 4)g-(_J
L �L( lli' .t�SSL4
ADDRESS ADDRESS (1247 4 k'- -c z I U
A 5 5-e Ni 553/ 1
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 34/ !o O 2I' TELEPHONE 4q6- 635e
' REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
' Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
v/ Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
' PROJECT NAME
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
' PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
' USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY / / FT. X .30 Pr. X / 6-0 F--r. N '7 7 f--T.
LOCATION 67.24 7 /- - %i/LE 3?-0 b. 45%6-i
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST /Vt4i%
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) 407- 42 O 5 I-F lre- 4 z
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and _
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies '
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
Signed By .. Date /S1 2� /Q/)'
AW-licant
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has ,
authorized to make this application for the propertyhereinn
described .
Signed By / •
Date X11 *--,• ; /9� 1
•
c►
F •e �'ner
•
Date Application Received -02 �d p
Application Fee Paid $7500 6 75.00
City Receipt No. o24)2-gl
I4a .
p w�opztt O 4 It
* This Application will be considered b
Board of Adjustments and Appeals by the Planning Commission/ '
meeting. PPeals at their
•
■
I ..'
•'• 7q iii--■••••"""ill"
. < ii.■"1"
, I ■ •/
I ,
cr7/
41.4'JO
\--1‘
/ 0
A
RAILROAD TIE ( l 600 ....4...Y
I RETAINING WALL
a /
.'10 004
if.
to
CD I
ICS' 4‘...r? I 1 I •
/ I .
n c)
IN ..... •
/
I '-'--
/ *°°'C
././ 1 /
1 ......,„.
•-.....„
I6 5 ---------,.
-.:- / 1.f2 i
• F.
//r IL. la.,
I EXISTING cn
n.
..
,.."., _ EXISTING
I * a)
1.3 i GARAGE.?
r)
0.
ril sr
12 4
I
7.7 12 5
•
';-'....., HOUSE
I
--.
V
1, 10
EXISTING
ez, it = LINK
I
".
CO
/ ,.
In -----............... 28.7
'''
41. e.... ..,
I I 7.
-&'-
, - -
n
-i-- _
EXISTING
CHAIN LINK.---2
FENCE
--1 WEST LINE OF THESE ;0
OF SECTION 24, T 116 N ,R 23 W, IA 1,1 /
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT
i-- OF SHORE ACRES
I .
, ..._.
- .
t'--.
1 ...
•
i
...:...
.•
1..... •!..°
... 0
8
I .
_._
/
I
16--6.8—.&..:,...s,..,,,..
I _
1 +. 6 6.,o 36.'°O _
So/4,e,... s•lg.c
04,4..
,.i
• / t )L.147.1 I 0 k
1 .
-,,, ,•
I N
----,..........,...„,...„
I 4 ..$ /
' ....**".■.„...........
•••••.....
PI
, .-----............„........„
...
I
_ s.....‹
15:7 4 i... .'''.\''........■
_ C yo -....._.."'-...\.. x ■
......_...\........... I
E
I
I <J..
1Jo
I
V
y .
, �4�
�J
RAILROAD TIE °P ,y G9* R/l
RETAINING WALL / / 40' ,
. / ��3000`*
ei
'i /
I
J ^
Co , �
/ 40. 4
N Si
/
/ .t°° / 4*
,I. /
I/ 1 (8 is...... A.'''..,,_
I
0
t
T. sr"'� I
O.
�
,�/ �./ EXISTING
y •� CHAIN LINK
c 3 /' /O 6 6 4 FENCE
I
. Sb
In •
N O
_. ` 0 ` I r
tlf
•
•
EXISTING
CHAIN LINK '
FENCE
dig OF 7HE S.E.I 4
ZING 24, L 116 N !? 2J W,
•
• ING 70 THE RECORD PL 7 I
.RE ACRES
� 9. 1
.i..• .. If'f_ . (07
/ -
I
c.e
} S 6) J?
I
e 49-.0.
.30,,,,c). o E
-
tiE 'i
N
1
.1 . .1/, / ".........\........................
N
4gKF \`e
/ • .
6)//c�.- -
February 28, 1989
1 Mr. Steve Hanson
Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
RE: Variance Request #89-1
' Dear Steve:
I ask you to place my request first on the agenda for the
Board of Adjustment meeting. I would like to have adequate time to
' present uninterrupted rather than being forced to present as people
come strolling in at 7: 30 p.m. to attend the City Council meeting.
' If I can be of assistance to you in writing a staff report
recommending the proposed site plan dated February 22 , 1989 I would
appreciate the opportunity.
The issue is not the size of the proposed structure as we both
recognize the grandfather clause. The issue is do I build two or
three stories plus basement to obtain the same living space that
' I have proposed. The perpetuation of the existing single car garage
location is not what I prefer but provides the only garage under
a grandfather clause.
' I think the elimination of the encroachment and improving side
setbacks to a minimum of five feet is in the best interest of the
neighborhood.
' If you wish to walk over the property please call a day in
advance to set the time. I work during the day and will need to
' make special arrangements to be there.
Thanks for your time and patience on this matter.
Sincerely,
James F. Jessup
' resident/owner
1
MAR 11989
t,i r r Uh CHANHASSEN
,_ _
, I
I
t'ID r 1.U..a. e' ..■.■ .1.',..S. -7...?
I
L.3 1,_‘, C.1 a. nai it iItv :j(i3f1
01:3 0.:::i...:"0 i ill p c CP F.'3111P1-1 a..a t 0 t I:ie pro r...i 1:
Dear Hr. Hnson : I
I Nutt' d i 1 1, E....' Lt's t II Lai II: t II I arid 1. he 1.-..i L. / E. fiCji.1"r3i3C. r 1 Of t :II I 110
'QUI- t ifile Lc Jiip Oa I-: 1,3j.t j'i ill 0 St a s t Vied ri Of:3:d(iii.'t i-i3.Jijiiitl-1.1 3.1-■c...J n i.., not t
do I.J1.' n e i fa 1 113 0 l' O. alit ef It ions t.o r 0111 Odel hi 3:3 JI 0 ill e,, no .1
Li:: /011 3.fa Our meet.i nq y He i.itr U yer / muc I; afl +a ./of 0 I-
t:7E73Pa rig 1_11E,, rJr up Er t v nolt t A 0 OW' 'EL. 3. (lit i r C3' Ed. i 101.-Ve y C't . or 0 art C
tO L ::: CI .: '-- in .tie Litz s pl .Anning pruLes, .!no r !,..:ig.tations.
..,-.ti Icl to I H.('o our pr i.'p rg L . r :I.(4 I 11. ,..1..
Fr 0 in (...31 to Cil :LJi C.:at.,.i. i 00 • 1 LAI-10 Or.:.:t,cl.rid Lhe t 01 .1 OH ati0 pk..)irit J3 Lo b',..--
I
L.1. ;__y r: ( I I: 1 1 I-I .:::::. 1.2n i 01,1E: .L 11 ..: fiL 3. 1: 1 1 tia t.a 011 f.
Li.'I.: .i, (3-3 1...i lard I ct zi.:I.:03..3311 01 I I. a.1 I 1._)14 hr. :_)t.::,s a(AID Lot
0 on l' ht... to."';3.St a lip ; gun ci.at I On 0.k t hiJi..a. an v
OPE:33i..l 331 f. Pr Oil 1. i:F. , i .1 L:trig a s J. t C_I tii_...a not: -I-u r-I nor
L.F17.13:..,C13 requi r emen
t a i.. t.i 1 i.3 o ;i ....t 3.n(.4 st i'.1...1C3.i.la i DO CIO CI 0 t C3.0 ti 11:3.1.
1 t..: (.._1■.1' I' 'lit !/la.1 I (..Janci
1 ;num dui !ding Ili....3.ci;IL 1 a .2, :i.lz.ol- i c.;.■;E:,„
I
' Ilk. t 3.(30.1iil 111 3 •..!*.'3.'1 c."1 't.,..'1' (.t.i. .1
-..7. 11 tlo . `3Oli:.:1...tp c 1-100 3:ie a U..) bur. J.,..1 On i fff.:3 2 11 L1 f ICI
[ O H He fill di it. DP ili I 1 Lii,1c-'d 1. 0 ;.it i,.. 1. 3t. h 1 he hottse
.4 „tr-a cle:, Pit'. h _. Ott 1 t.:3 CI(.31. ad C.1 .:if i y 1 3, :i.fig .:43 qc.......,
ovt.-.'1' t jte Lic. t :.::C.V,,?.
I
1. ; 1 ,::., 1•'. ,..1. I t AC -:-.'i' U I-1 :i i C.■ .1. i' 1 i t: L.Dili Ci 3 ti 131.(1 1 i3
ta ' i .ii.i..3.liC,) C.).3ii, a 4,33 ,.. 1.t it.i -4.a.1 Ull 111'1. --"qt...ti:' '
a ... :-.- 1 Th:- a CI , I ' i.-.3.:3: Lin Cif I..+r i. 1. „ .
I
tie 00 t.ij . 0 e L.a 0 e t.(3 t..Lifflp J.et t,..1 , destroy' '1. hE3 C-' i I :iit.1 I 3::.;
..,. i.-Juf....turo and cchuild , thc lit would allow a
, :-.:1 i-i;:',.:c ,...:',.-:: ti 1.. 3 8 .21.) toot r c:::LI ct i r-od ::-.,,ei. b ir:i 1.....-j• 1'r OM t h e
3.'11 i !-:3€.3 1. . 1. r h 3. ..„, wol...o.d -.i. i f le
..i.o with the two homes to ihe Last oi the propert , ,
-,-1 .
• •-if Clt ,, will not aluw an,, allaHCPO to the i 'L..1 hz,o1
trom the laLe. This includes doci- s,
potches , aid patio.. in iront of a wall- out ta,- emLnt .
I
'. FOC' iarianLe. io the lu foot ,5trio setbaci- s to be
allowed ., a bar ds1"1 i p ; non s.e I+-c-r ea t ed as per'
section 20-58 #4. ) would ha,e to be established. It
was your op i 01 on I hat y 01...I. P now Ot nO .31.tCLI'l har ClOh 1 p
FB Q7 19..)89 I
. i,..a
c,"‘ ,N,F,ts-8-111
I , '» '
because Mr. J� ssup was well aware of the size u+ the
I
lot and the pert inent city codes when he purchased
the propert , last ,eur .
I8. The City opinion il, that 1 would have easement
r ight acr oss the northwest corner of his lot for
acce�s to my two driveways. This is because I have
owned m ' propert`' for u 'er eight �ears and l ha�e
I u' ed and maintained the c orner of hi proper t y i or
access to my property. Hl :i.o, this condition has
�xisted in thi � form sinoe the home and garage were
I built in the ear 1../ bt/ s.
9. The City cannot pro-vide jurisdiction as to how he
I reroutes the r ain water runoff , even if he redirects
I unto mv pruperty , beraus this is an indi ^zduai
leg ,d question for a iudqe to decide.
I10. The Lit:, will infor in us in writing when the actual
Applicatiun,L: and plans ha 'e been submitted and when
he 8oar u 'H c°dju. tments And /,ppealF wil1 meet to
IL
dzscuss Lhe 'arzances. 1 under stand that the
ea r lzest date of this meeting would be February
2/th.
I
If I ha\/ !kJ Ktm(th-r �t uod any u, the abn` e pol nt. , l would
appreciate ii u�� would let- me � now as s000 as puesib1e. it
I I dn oot h�ar / r um ,uu b/ � �bruar y 1�th , l wil1 a',snm � ths
Abo'e points to he correct.
I Hqain I wnu1d } ii P tu th mr m/ / ur our t ime and
info, mat iuo.
I ':.:sir : ::: •el ,
�
%. ' e�
N� Don�ld bit ter
N� 924Y | ��p kile. M1 ` U.
Lhanhas=en , Mo. 5 .::',1 '
I44�'' /28
cc Ni- . 0011 ,,'hwnr-t 11 . L zt / Uaoaqer
I
I
I
II
����
����
•
Cer TI UGC/re
,
i -,
cn /
0- ,
I
■
4'4 .
I RAH ,?
.ROAD TIE
RETAINING WALL—N/ ,/ , /
0
' . 89.
Ir .
I
J --
if
i.. . .
•,71
•
...,
/
cis /
/ I a0 / /11104/
t \i• / cf.)/
-----
:".
4
/" "/ .. 8
c‘A/Ii
f Wir-qqic, ...i 1
.i
Ni
I t
t
OW ...
ff. .......
z
_.
I
.-;
4-7
I .
I
I ...7.
I !
1 ,
; .
I
I I
I I P NI. _ C(ISTING
:-..
I3r .- 6+.6 CHAIN L,NIK
',FENCE
-3 I
I ' 1
I ° r■ ; i 7,..// )
I "in
It
1 ° N
I _
?.
C'i 0 --
0
' V) ■
I ...
•i .-. --
•--__
/ .....
=,--
i --_,---_____________ / Otori," //
I
1. E x;5 T!NG
CHAIN t_INF---
FENCE — ...-1
WE ST INC OF THE S i/4
f
OF SE.TION 24, T H6 N R 23W
I ..5 ACCOR,'ING TO THE RE OR() P t./I r '
/
:-- OF S •RE ACRES
i
C9
CO7 ,
.. i/
I i
y
/
VII .• ,
col° 14 5 617 I 10 — i
..-
-,'
I
1 & LA i
.....:.' ,4_,,440 1 ■ 0
I .
I
I •
-.........
/
I
I ---
,.- j,
- .6,,c.3 )
,
f
I
!
I
II . „,.... 7----„
____, -----„..,:....I .,//
I co
•
s i --......,„
.......„,,
.,.....„
... . t
//
........:„............l....'
Ad '
. —
II (--- /(..-■-- ---....._
t
o : L$
z
O =b
wnA r L p� n
m2x
mZti .� \ �m
; -'.
1 'T G1/2,
/ r soo•05'10"�W zs - \ -45.8- \
— �� - 16.4
28'_ , - 122 87 m
x
u o !
S cnoF x 9
/ • oar_ •_ ~y
v p DONO - O
4 n am �_
b JO-I'
/ oi 4 0
\ n;/ memo-
I � I
;_z- alle •
7 \N
alialaill,
, ;/ tir
o""--. J s 1 1,..
N a- 1 '
b
, 411.11004 0
l 1/6
'4/.20. O
0
%
\ . A /31 � C
_/ in
m n - ....,
Viz,, 1.
�Z o 5.g \1«
x -.)
�•
Y
' March 6 , 1989
Donald W. Sitter
' 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
' Stephen R. Hanson
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O . Box 147
Chanhassen Mn. 55317
Dear Mr. Hanson:
This letter is intended to formalize our concerns with
regards to the request for variances on the Jessup property
at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
' We do want to see the property improved, however we would
like to insure that the house plans are consistent with the
rest of the homes in the neighborhood and that the plans make
' sense for the lot it will be on.
As for the hardship, I do not see that the Jessups have
' established any hardships that are not self-created. They
knew the size of the lot, the city' s setback ordinances and
the condition of the home before they purchased the property.
Also, there is plenty of room to build a fine home within the
' setback requirements (approx. 1470 sq. ft. on one level ) .
Specifically, we are concerned with the following points:
1 . The proposed overall size of the house is too big for the
lot. The preliminary plans show a 3000 square foot home
with a potential 6 bedrooms placed on a lot having just
' over 7000 square feet and only 25 feet of shoreline .
Because we have still not seen full plans or elevations,
if these variances are granted, the actual total square
feet could expand even more. I feel the city should
demand full plans and elevations be submitted before they
consider ruling on any of these variance requests.
2 . We feel very strongly that the house should not be built
any closer to the lake than the 75 foot setback
requirement. This is mainly for environmental concerns.
' This should definitely include not only 3 season porches,
but also decks and patios which could easily be enclosed
in the future, thereby obstructing neighbor' s views of
the lake .
3. We still feel the plans show the house being too close to
our property line. It is true that his garage now lies
, _
1
slightly on our property and it would appear to be an
improvement to move it over 6 feet. But as it is now,
all their traffic and activities go between their garage
and house with the garage acting as a buffer for us. If
they incorporate the garage in the house as the plans
show, all their traffic would go around the house on our
side . Therefore we would want the full 10 foot setback
requirement enforced to prevent their activities from
spilling over onto our property.
4 . The overall height that we saw on a preliminary drawing
showed it to be 3 stories high and to be approximately 35
feet over the road. I realize this is within the 40 foot
requirement, but it does not fit with the neighborhood
when the 2 homes to the east are only one story high.
5 . We are very concerned with the drainage problems that
will be caused by the size and placement of the planned
structure . Originally all the rain water flowed through
the Jessup property. The Jessups have already piled
gravel on the back of their lot enough to re-route the
water onto our property. Now if they build this house as
planned and totally change the grade thereby blocking the
natural water path, all the water must go somewhere else .
I believe the city should demand the Jessups submit
drainage plans to show how they will handle the water
drainage problem.
6 . We also think the activities associated with a house of
this size do not fit on such a small lot. We are
concerned that eventually their activities will end up
spilling over on the adjacent properties.
Finally, in response to the comments Mr. Jessup stated in the
meeting on Feb. 27th, we feel he was greatly exaggerating
some of the points. As for what exists now on the property,
he was claiming that the shed attached to the garage, the
pumphouse, and the deck are now existing permanent
structures that were not shown on his plans. The reason
these were not shown is because they are not permanent
structures. The facts are that the "shed" is a "basket-weave"
fence with a few pieces of plastic for a roof, the "deck" is
a large step out the front of the house without railings and
is simply sitting on a few concrete blocks, and the "pump
house" is a "structure" only about three feet square and only
one foot above the ground level. He also claimed the
driveway to be permanent asphalt when in fact it is only
loose gravel, and I am not sure the garage itself would even
qualify as a permanent structure. I hope you have time
before the next meeting to come out and view the property
yourself to verify these facts.
As for a precedence being set by other homes in the
neighborhood, I don't believe any exist. The new home under
d
I
construction on the point ( I believe Lot #35 ) had many
extenuating circumstances because within the setbacks, there
was little or no room left to build. I know this plan was
reviewed very closely by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
prior to granting any variances. The small blue house Mr.
Jessup mentioned that is currently being remodeled on 9221
Lake Riley Blvd. , is also a different story. This was
supposedly built on the existing foundation and was not
brought up to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for
1 review. There were no variances needed for what they wanted
to do. Because I believe they built beyond the extents of
the original foundation and I believe this is unfortunate,
this should be handled as a separate issue and should no way
be viewed as setting a precedence for the Jessup situation.
In conclusion, We would like very much to work with the
Jessups to achieve a plan that will be acceptable to all .
1 But as for the requested variances, we feel the only one that
would be acceptable is to allow them to go within 20 feet of
the road which is similar to the adjacent houses to the east.
1 All the other requested variances, we feel very strongly
should not be granted.
Thank you very much to your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
l .
Donald W. Sitter
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1_
1
Cit*,y Council Members
City of Chanhassen '
February 27, 1989
Dear Council Members:
Due to other committments I am not able to attend tonight's
meeting. I would, however, like to comment on the proposed
building of a home on the lot located at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
My concern is the overbuilding of this lot. It is my
understanding that the proposed structure would be over 3300
square feet in total area with a 2 car garage and a large amount
of deck in addition to that. I like large homes as much as anyone
but the site of this home on the lot that they have proposed it for
is unreasonable. I am speaking on this subject with many
interests: 1) I am a resident in the neighborhood in question and
feel overbuilding of any lot would be a detriment to it; and 2) I
own 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. which is also a buildable lot in the
neighborhood and located on Lake Riley. While I am all for nice
homes coming into the neighborhood, I believe that there .should be
guidelines established by the city to control the size of building on
any given lot. It is indeed unfortunate that the situation should
get to the point where neighbors or potential neighbors have to pit
themselves against each other to achieve a solution. True, there is
a procedure for granting variances and that is needed. However,
there should be a ratio of building size to lot size so that there is
sortie firm guidance as to what can be expected by both parties. If
there is a guideline as such on the books, then I believe it should be
enforced by the city so the neighbors wouldn't have to.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely, ' '
- 7(-44ø Alan H. Dirks
1
March 6 , 1989
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
To : Board of Adjustments and Appeals
' This Letter serves to voice our feelings of opposition to
granting variances for front , side , rear setbacks and
maximum lot coverages at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard . It is
' our understanding that the applicants wish to construct a 3
story, 3000-3600 square foot house on this very small
lakeshore lot .
To grant the variances for this lot will set a precedence
for the remaining small lots around the area. What will
happen is that the other owners may elect to do the same,
' thus creating a very close complex of oversized houses that
would not be very appealing. This we feel will detract and
degrade from the esthetic appearance of the neighborhood as
well as the country openness this area has grown to enjoy.
These are reasons we chose to move to where we are .
We recommend denial of these variances and will appreciate
' our concerns being given the fair attention deserved. Please
visit the site , observe the neighborhood, and recognize the
impact to the neighborhood if the variances are approved .
Thank You in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully,
1 � E
' Kenneth and Katherine Wolter
341 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen , MN. 55317
(612)-496-1337
I
Iand MaryEllen Jessup
Variance Request 89-1
' February 27, 1989
March 13, 1989
GOAL: To establish our long term residence here.
I
ACTION REQUESTED: The board of Adjustment and Appeals
approve the variances and lot coverage as proposed on the
revised site plan dated 3/6/89 in the staff report
' for Variance Request # 89-1, James and MaryEllen Jessup
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
1
Proposed Home details: A two story home with three
bedrooms, an attached two car garage, deck and
basement. That is consistent with other residences
in the neighborhood.
I
I apologize for changing the site plan but each revision
represents another attempt to more closely comply with the
neighbors and staff requests.
I
I
11
I
I
11
111
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
11 -
II
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES
I RSF Existing Proposed NET
Description Require. Variance Variance IMPROVEMENT
Front setback 30 ' -13 ' -13 ' 0 '
ISide (east) 10' -5.5 ' 0' 5.5 '
* Side (west) 10 ' -13.5' -5 ' 8. 5 '
Rear 75 ' -7 ' -10' -3 '
I Maximum Lot 25% -9% -7% 2%
Coverage
* Eliminates garage encroachment
IIf these were self created hardships why is the existing
structure so far off the mark by todays standards. Previous
I owners experienced the same physical limitations and
hardships.
I THIS LOT IS PECULAR AND HAS SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT WARRANT
ADJUSTMENTS FROM THE STANDARDS.
SEE SKETCH SHOWING AVAILABLE BUILDING SPACE AFTER SETBACKS.
I PRECEDENCES: Variances granted in Shore Acres
Addition/Lake Riley Blvd.
The home on Lot #36 was granted variances along the side
5 ' and 33 ' rear (lake) and front variances. This home
I has a one car length drive.
This home is placed on a narrow lot (50 feet width) and is
approximately the same length as the subject property.
I The home currently under construction on Lot #35 of Shore
Acres was granted variances of 25 & 40 feet from the rear
(lake side) . This property has water on two sides.
IGRANDFATHER CLAUSE: Utilizing the existing structure
footprint is an alternative but does not alleviate
I the encroachment or improve the setbacks. Nor does the
structure meet the requirement of having a two car garage.
I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS:
This situation is exactly why the BOARD was created to
provide fair treatment. This lot is pecular and warrants
I providing for variances as prescribed by the code.
I am planning a structure consistent with my neighbors.
I
I
I
I
II. 1 ; qkF VC! IlIIt•td / c
• ,4
I ,s.o .
a 4
•441
I
,y R 4.R4ILRDAD TIE
/ �� .N 69e /
RETAINING WALL / ' CO'
. �1p W
e
I I
G' 1
I
I s
/..." *06.C. /
O. ., / f rv)
/ h?e , ihkiti ,:„:,
Y.
t E X I S T I
, 11101
I ;� • �/�1 T � N G:
' G A RAG .,'
I
I 12.5 7Ah
IH O U S E ,',
i
j:,,,, EXISTING
Co ig.
CHAIN LINK
I ; Q�
66 FENCE
n OD se.
N err
N
A
I I /
I EXISTING /
CHAIN LINK—;,
FENCE /.../WEST LINE OF THE S E 1/4 /D if
OF SECTION 24, T 116 N R 23'W,
_5 ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PL•T II I JF SHORE ACRES .
4/
i A7O
I
• 2
4
6.8 -/;`
I x \ x
\\ /
's'u B VQ,•E \
</4E T `'
�� •.
N
I I
x /
:,
�_ /` \
4. A
LAKE KIL t Y CLVL
>1..c....°....g....-
I7 4 13 O / N 69°401 00° W \ _ _
•
` L3— 77.30 I
A.
'no, 3
4
t t `r O
a
t��PUt. oo \O Jh -�-
u 1
\ 04 ., ,
a , 63
I
I / ,P
U
/ , Iat
Pro Pay�o
/ N G
ti
/ O /, - N G t24
�( � S
,y4 // A{ E X S K,
o st
li
1 G �N
M. 0 U ENC K
µ 71 X86 i i
1 /
�o r,
Pe I
r
h�orPU� UP ` ze i
i
1 N 4.5' , itiriiJ�,
\ o
N 64
�
f 4 V;
g Z3 P,P
I d i t S''•0 0\ 0 Of k R
t NN 241KE
Of5ES`OG S POµ;
5RNE 0O a
= C
p 5H Al
NG , '1
S
1 ---a S d
■ _ 1
I \
I
\\f • - 3 00 I
\ SUR EY INE�// I
II
I
1
\ x
\ r, I
±I
1 N N
1
x
I . -
1
1
1
I .-s
1 i
.
1 g, i r
\, , i r
1 s -- . 1 i w
0 i g t... 1 L my :
1
3--- T - -
I . . 1 1pr.
_ 1 uf f. . i c:, la Li,.
I I il
I • _
v1. .
1
1
I
. 1Fild Ltve,t.
1 1150 S.F.
I3/io/$9 S r .. SSOP
I
I .
1
1 \
1
I -
•
I 1 * / f
' . [WIL---.-
- bohr(, 1. bo r�+ `3 S
1 ._._._._.,
.01
1 u
1 no► bomoyt. 14. of
, , i F,�+ T. bt �J , 1
mbopsri.
1 . ,_ , i i E
I !
+ t
; o.
1
1
1
1 drp ,p-
I 1 ‘) t,l
6.274, S.F.
3/**, S ,rTcss4oP
I
1
IStorage shed not shown on original site plan and not included
in the existing coverage calculations.
I
.1,..„ ,.., ,i ,r••■
* ,, .I.°"; 1... 1 ■ :::,' - IS a •••••-- • 1
�J t � i I
A 4 ,
**1./t......,.. ''
Ad T i of ,
-Ti_ ifil E` .C. I.4 tki...:11 _
... - , r. 1 mom
.1 di I li
...'_ . Cr. *Y'":1:1, t 0017_,„1...... t‘ , • '...,-.'"I'1‘, lak_iirt
w• 14t;',..14' �. a• ..) ' s1 l;' 4.4 is •rcr fa
d• Y.
I,t. t� ,a ... •*
IAsphalt driveway not shown on original site plan and not included
in the existing coverage calculations.
I
- / , /p
1 "I 1
�'1 �. ..t......,.,.: i g
c. — i l . ,,r _• 2
ri
. . y ! ..�..r ...
"` c 44.r e:
.1
Deck not shown on original site plan and not included in the
existing coverage calculations.
I
;a
I `�
•sue < - ..i.. h ty :. 1 +44 /
L
/ .4 r _ •mod ' /1
11 /' (eW
- , r1i 1 .3 y
L l_ � •: = k - it
___
Lil
IPump house not shown on original site plan and not included
in the existing coverage calculations.
[ I, • • r `;��
1. 1% • -,J .t —
A �� r,� i tie:" 3!
t 1 " " .1�Yiii'•. �pHa 1 t ,.r t
lows.'
A, ..
ikffitVt i.), 4 6, ;' . •i- it
Tj . r 1y hi
..:...%„.-s
y
,14.-, � +� •, �.` ,i f4 WIP � •a. f t'(\.r
4,.
• . ��``ii ;4.ri
r ,r, *,. • ,, :! }
II
.1
I18 ft. driveway consistent with neighboring properties.
Shore Acres Lots 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36.
I
1 r fi I j . g, � f` ! . K p
wf-.' 3 ;r ,4 -ti• ki
•; Tp S Y J ;Iiiit-
1 -�. _ _ '
I
ILots 27 & 28 the closeness of existing homes.
, .0" .,,,.,., , , . ‘
1 ,41,7,..ltt:'::' ...-- .- " ''Vq . j .' . .. . ,. ,k..,.. . .,...,., 7)
A a frcy,,,. ,.....: .,-
I ' P �f I �'
. .Jill, , i :),14. ..10 ,. . .....
1 .t:
1" . \ . . .4g__._..L, 1 • .
111,6'141, 1
i j , ;:!?,�'•
MM� �d l
.' _ 0 I,
. . .•s')illtiit: +i, r. N
I -‘1 s
I .
•
IHome located on Lot 35 of Shore Acres that was granted
25 ' & 40' variances on the rear (lake) side.
I � ,r,,,I'7'S't'F'`TI• �iW'�} ' 1 - ��,-,.-.,_.,......w'^Cr!"'��,,,,I 'R', f
f Ff i i!' ♦ C r1 iqk:, 1 1 �r� Z
't,"),,� 1? �,� rte^' �\\ �l� �I 1� . "' �k Li � a'U!!i��
r •{r� :J .T�1 , ) '.,^ir, �. l� .'"',.0.....4% `,,,„,..0„,,, .1411
1 1 � , . ' :I Sirs C..1 4•! 1 j' •� i/-.Yr: i 4I.4 `�'"i,a, r..11 0...r a
( \ . i Ai,,, '"' 44.01114 1'7
- , , 4 s's '■, I. 5 i''' , i.e( N,".t,,047r t ■- ..- '''';''' tatt
I „f •�
( . ( r,--- - 1;17 1)1' A A' ' te' )' /t ',•li 11‘14;...1--''''''' •t „'
J �' ;.,.r. �. ) : }' I k 1 ,')..-1,17• + 1,� 1} r r *- 1 �i1 ll
it•Jil'+' �'4 '�:u,� ■ I: .r.,\', - ,i �,,. >r►r R , }.•1 y4) i 6.4” A�1�
KIT k`ni6g: ,1`l I%'` � 1�X-` i .'�4 s .c ' 1 f' _ ✓ 1r,jl
IK v∎1 },.t;,,' � t�fc�f ■ 51, I '• X1"1 k.il__ at �,i T�a! :1 5' - 'i 4_. 47 , 1j ' h*Y"T�°•d'!'di'J��t�"'�"�� ` —i''..:
rf 1AV'+•
!;`"i' ` h'.tt1!: `..mss .
tile ••" ... r __--- - ' -','? ........—.,---7--..
Home located on Lot 36 of Shore Acres that was granted
5 ' side, 33 ' rear (lake) and front yard variance.
Li -..-zi. ,.....;--.7.--- > ` ■ ,', i' 4 t / "% i
a i
r
i . . .
�•.. • . am F I
; , I 1 • ' ••yi , �
•
I °.t., — -
>r`f i' ..'fin - '"'.•n', _
-�.,' " y
1
Residence on Lot 40 & 41 of Shore Acres note garage.
Common property line on east side of subject property.
I
, ,• j
I �
�fit ,,.
! R i
I
I _ ti ! _t
� It -ice.
_ 1
-�
+tYt ..K;. „I- .4+1/ ,fir '..
L- M ' "..; t �, f:4ts,yj if r Y• : — p+ 'S,6Fip n. ur �s,. �4.
r1� 4`J. . `C' :' '•7<•t.. J' --,> ',44 t
' Residence at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Common property line on
west side of subject property.
,4:),
., .�s* „ ' 'x �. ,,} X
A(, i ';',z 4, . r •. ..4....1,%
fir ) _ ..4 ., ,. -; '11
•- 4• t •L, it A�i • , -,---..,-,.i_---,--1‘4.., . i
l I l,...,-(;440 4,) �
, 114, d
,
I l' .�wfv '!
1. ';,
. rli,.;,\,.. '.41 t to i „ I,
I I L ? ,.. . \,...— .1, ...,.z.iv ■ r , ;it
et,. Iiiikpy I 1 A, ',9F
I1 �`` ran .(UI - `i: .. . L' 1,.,-i
L-- 1 � 7r it'll { r P �c 17111 I P:
il • • vi •fti +' • A• :7l—lai .
1 . 1 i (
' • ,
Residence on north side of Lake Riley Blvd. across from
subject property.
4,iii tP,---- -'MO 04,0', htirqiiittliV AIX .,1414 r 4,lir i v41
‘; . 4:4. - ,. ''E%-1),Afis2. pf,tle.i.ntoh, Nik :, - ,_ ..■-ti e .%,,, .,...,4 1 A t 1 4.
I . , . 47 'itot-.40' , --;. : • -, ,...-.,. litk,..') •.._ -..,..,- ..4.. .id 1
' ,. , ' .4,t ,,_..''i, '' `,r_ 0.a�r 1. 'f4I'f '14.:P: . '.w,2,,1bi 1, �,. '°' ,'j,�.!�-1%..,.
. to,,,sk., eto. .011,0., ‘, .■ ... its. : l' Mr .':di&I . • ...'',;;#1 itt 4t IF 4.• s...lept, .—t -.:„ ‘, ):.
'''')<:.4 1,4:t.Iiii: . ,e lia"1116.*. - '. l�1iY e4..,,, .,p, .... , t ,.f ` A
9 iii r tk j �! '•l 4 i Y
1 11 .. A nit x'11'
!II! i - .o til j� '. ,;x,,47';, , ; v' 1�ii��i� -a e 'girl r
lif
40001iikol‘
I I
I
i
I