3. Variances to front, side & rear yard setback, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. C _.�.
CITY O f BOA DATE: Feb. 27, 1989
1 1 C.C. DATE:
C1121,111ASSZLI 1 Y
CASE NO: 89-1 Variance
1 -
Prepared by: Hanson/v
I .
1
STAFF REPORT
li - PROPOSAL: Variance for Construction of a
Single Family Residence
Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side
1 Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage
ti
Iv
LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley
Boulevard
1.i.. APPLICANT: James & Mary Ellen Jessup ^j,, Dip'
iQ 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard ~
Chanhassen, MN 55317 _x3 _
1 -
IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: . 17 acres ( 7,500 + s . f. )
IDENSITY:
_ ADJACENT ZONING
1 AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; residential single family
1 gcii. S- RD; Lake Riley
E- RSF; residential single family
III Q W- RSF; residential single family
W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available
v, PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site slopes to lake
2000 A
L ND USE PLAN: Residential
1
•
II
I Jessup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 2
I
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES
IRSF Existing Existing Proposed Proposed
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%
ICoverage
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.
l 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
I 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.
I 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
I the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck
and porch would bring this into compliance with code require-
ments .
IThe 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.
r
II
-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 .
1 . 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
II
The literal enforcement
of the setbacks would cause me to build
a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor
Iomprised 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.
he 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
1[e 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.
he planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The
ariances 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
Itook forward to starting construction this Spring.
incerely,
ames F. Jessup
roperty owner of
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
III
•
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.
I
' LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: itrne As 6um.'tA. OWNER: _IA 6 F. `l PA-12cj et-LEKI G+�
' ADDRESS ADDRESS g2g7 L.4P=E 13-i_up.
[',N�4-tv �J A 5 5CT1 55 '5/ 1-
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 34/ O 2£-? TELEPHONE 4q6- 635e
' REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
✓ Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
' Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
IPRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY / // F/ X 30 Fr. X / 6-e3 / • n '7 7
' LOCATION 9,2 47 4. LE/ & II b. 1/4591 /J'.
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST /✓Fkc/ / , -/E Git/=;-K?cz :77 on/
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) L D T 42 or= 5/4-Oil M./es.
I iii MN•II 1.1 0•1111..'
• 14 i L.a••••••••"'"a"
• . < ••••101.1111111"1"
, - ' , I ,.. ■/
/3 0
I fn
ON
I 4 ti.4 ..
TALL 5
04E.
411 ct
I .0
(
RAILROAD IE 10.90
I RETAINING W
0
to I 10'
kfr
I - v•
P4 '
.. .
.... •
tv
I a
f CI
Ak /
"----
--..........
i6 3 ••---------
_, 0. / 1 •
•,.. / 1.,,C2I
-„I
/ _.. . 12.8
I i
--.
-1
I EXISTING 01
•:•,- n.
- • EXISTING
*
I
i co
.-
I 11 GARAGEN)
,0
0.•
-. 0
/2 q
I :--- .
H O U S E
-Z.
I .--
It
:
EXISTING
Z •• 8.6 CHAIN LINK
-,. , FENCE
I :,-
-7
..... . I=
0 ,.... ■..._.................
/
28 7
--.......................
IS NCC7i ...
---
...
0 --.....
44' 2 .. .•
I ,...
-‘,
,
.. ..... . -
,c,,, .... _5_
,
---„,,
.10
12,--
I t'::-.
.... EXISTING
CHAIN LINK
FENCE
WEST LINE OF THE S.E 1/4
OF SECTION 24, T 116 N ,R 23W
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT
I ;
1.'4
II OF SHORE ACRES
...
..* et
. . '•
.
. lfil
■•t. q
8
r
- ci:..
I
%--,-
:. ,
I
F6.8 -4.............„....
/
I -
+1 3°0
so:00:31,9
ey .9qtte
....
• / fy...1 -,T 1 0 LI
-if5'40 ri,fie,1=-4-, .
I 1
.CO
Ori
,...
I
/ .....s....,.......
I c •'`,
4) ----------,...................,
........
N
-....,_.......-
I 4 ir,c. ---.'"----
.... --...--.....__. /
'`''''...-----, /