Loading...
1997-07-08 minutes CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING JULY 8, 1997 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL, ROBERT AND LAURA EVANS, 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report. Steve Berquist asked if the existing home was setback 30 feet from the property line abutting Lake Riley Boulevard. Kirchoff stated that the house was 30 feet from the property line. Berquist asked if the applicant could put a patio in the same location. Kirchoff responded that a patio would be allowed to encroach 5 feet into the setback. Robert Evans stated that the proposal has been drastically revised to lessen the variance request. Berquist asked for the definition of a structure. Kirchoff recited the definition of structure from Section 20 of the Code as anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to: buildings,fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks,playground equipment, concrete slabs. Carol Watson questioned why the applicant had a 20 foot front yard setback on Deerfoot Trail and a 30 foot front yard setback on Lake Riley Boulevard. Kirchoff stated that the 20 foot was permitted because it is in a planned unit development and a reduced setback would increase the distance the residence is from Lake Riley Boulevard. The 30 foot setback intended to compensate for the 20 foot setback. Evans stated that if they truly have two front yards, then why do they not have a 20 foot setback on Lake Riley Boulevard. He stated that the setbacks are inconsistent. Mr. Evans mentioned that Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 2 he was not the original owner of the house and that the developer decided to make the lot smaller. He explained that the 30 foot setback on Lake Riley Boulevard created a hardship for them and that they are only 6 out of 17,000 homes in Chanhassen with two front yards. Watson stated that she has two front yards because she lives on a corner. Willard Johnson said that the developer is responsible for the lot size and setbacks, not the City. Evans stated that they have a hardship because the 30 foot setback is limiting what they can do in their backyard. Berquist asked how long the applicant has lived in the home. Evans replied four years. Berquist questioned if the applicant would be permitted to install landscaping in the rear yard. Kirchoff responded that it would be permitted as long as it is not located in the right-of-way. Evans stated that the landscaping and fencing around the pool is going to make the yard look wonderful. Berquist stated that he believes that it will,but that is not the criteria that they utilize to grant a variance. Evans replied that Mark Senn indicated that a variance would not be an issue if the neighbors do not object. He stated that all 7 of their neighbors who could potentially see the pool signed a petition in favor of the proposal. Mr. Evans stated that the pool is only encroaching 5 feet, not 10 as staff has stated. Watson stated that a patio can encroach five feet so the variance would be really only five feet because a patio is similar to a pool. Kirchoff stated that the proposal submitted to staff by Valley Pools required a 10 foot variance. Evans stated that the decking on the pool will only be 3 feet. Berquist indicated that he believes that property owners should have the right to construct what they want as long as the rules are followed as these standards took many years to develop. The rules are protecting all interests. He stated that the neighbors do not have issues with the pool 1 1 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes .._ July 8, 1997 Page 3 and that Lake Riley Boulevard serves a finite number of people. The rules are flexible for improvements. Evans mentioned that the neighbors will not see the pool. Berquist stated that the landscaping will look good. He also explained that older suburbs have relaxed standards for mature neighborhoods. Evans stated that the City will always have applications for variances. Watson stated that the 20 and 30 foot setback do not make sense. She stated that a patio can encroach 5 feet. Johnson stated that he does not like the idea of the encroachment and allowing a structure closer to the street. He asked if they could reduce the size of the pool. Evans stated that they could not have a diving board. Berquist stated that he does not like the idea of a side yard variance. He mentioned that the street �., with the 20 foot setback serves 12 residences and the street with the 30 foot setback serves eight homes. Evans stated that their hardship is that they have a 20 foot front yard setback on Deerfoot Trail and a 30 front yard setback on Lake Riley Boulevard. Watson stated that they do not have a hardship as a home with a garage exists on the lot. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve the variance from the front yard setback with the conditions outlined in the staff report. The motioned carried with a vote of 3 to 0. A REQUEST FOR A 17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, WILLIAM AND JOANNE LAMBRECHT, 6990 UTICA LANE. Kirchoff presented the staff report. Berquist questioned if the Department of Natural Resources has the authority to reverse a decision for a variance. Kirchoff indicated that the DNR could reverse a decision. '.‘Th ''.m. .0'"••\ Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 4 Berquist questioned if a patio could be constructed in the same location without a variance. Kirchoff responded that it would also require a variance. Berquist stated that he was not aware that a permit was needed to replace a deck. Joanne Lambrecht stated that a City inspector indicated that it is reasonable to have access to the lake from their deck. Berquist responded that the inspection department does not enforce planning issues. He indicated that he agrees with the inspector and that they are not encroaching any farther than the existing deck. Joanne Lambrecht stated that they need a landing for their deck. Berquist asked how long the applicants have lived in their home. Bill Lambrecht replied that they have lived in the home for 5 years. Johnson stated that he believes that they should be able to replace the existing deck but has an issue with adding to the nonconformity of the structure. Rick Gunderson stated that most people would not obtain a permit for a deck replacement,but that is not how he does business. He said that it will not encroach any farther than the existing deck. Mr. Gunderson mentioned that there is only one access from the main level of the home. Watson stated that she is their neighbor and does not have any objections to the additional deck because it is not closer to the lake and it is not impervious surface. Johnson asked if anyone in the audience had comments. Watson moved,with the condition that erosion control fencing be placed until the ground is revegetated, Johnson seconded the motion to approve a variance from the shoreland setback with the above condition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated June 17, 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I 1 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 5 Watson moved, Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I /.' '. -m CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 1997 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II and Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL, ROBERT AND LAURA EVANS, 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report. Robert Evans questioned why the yard abutting Lake Riley Boulevard is a front yard rather than a rear yard because it is used as a back yard. He stated that several variances have been granted on Lake Riley Boulevard. Mr. Evans indicated that the pool will be engineered, the landscaping will be professionally done and that the project will exceed City Code requirements. He also stated that he would like to construct a pool so that his daughter will have a safe place to play. As to measurements of setbacks,he indicated that through his experience in the asphalt business, the setback is measured from the center of the road. Steve Berquist asked why the property has two front yards. He asked if the original plat showed the two front yards. Al-Jaff responded that the yard is considered to be front yard because it abuts a public street. Carol Watson stated the she has two front yards on her property because it is a corner lot. Berquist asked if pools can be constructed in the 30 foot rear yard setback. Sharmin Al-Jaff responded that based on square footage, accessory structures must maintain a certain setback in the rear yard. Berquist questioned if the pool would be permitted in a rear yard and if the setbacks were specified in the original plat. Al-Jaff confirmed that a pool could be constructed in the rear yard and that the 20 foot setback on Deerfoot Trail and 30 foot setback on Lake Riley Boulevard were shown on the plat. Evans stated he was told the only thing he can construct in this yard is a driveway. He questioned why he can construct a driveway and not a pool. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes -- June 17, 1997 Page 2 Al-Jaff indicated that the driveway may exceed the 25 percent hard surface coverage requirement. She said that the property already has access. Ms. Al-Jaff stated that a reasonable use does exist on the property and that a hardship must be proved for a variance to be granted. Berquist stated that staff interprets the Code. He commented that a variance is granted because a hardship is demonstrated. Evans stated that they would just like to improve their property. Berquist stated that he appreciates the fact that the applicant wants to improve the property, however, the original developer maximized the property and constrained their ability to construct a structure in that yard. He indicated that he would like the pool to work without approving a variance. Al-Jaff stated that staff had not reviewed the proposal that the applicant had presented at the meeting. She explained that the applicant had proposed a kidney-shaped pool. The staff report and the recommendation was based upon what was submitted to the City. Evans stated that they intended on constructing a rectangular-shaped pool, not a kidney-shaped. Kirchoff stated that she spoke with Becky at Valley Pools and that alternative locations were investigated, however, all would require a variance. Watson stated that the issue is the lot is less than 15,000 sq. ft. She stated that it is the responsibility of the owner to determine if a structure can be built prior to purchase. Berquist stated that he is unsure if he would be willing to grant a variance and that he is uncertain as to what the applicant is requesting. He stated that the 1%variance from the lot coverage requirement does not concern him, but the variance to the setback does. He commented that he understands the desire but would like to see a pool plan that is less extensive. Evans explained that they cannot use the back yard. Watson stated that staff did not receive the information that the applicant presented at the meeting and that staff is at a disadvantage since they have not seen the revised plan. She stated that she would like to table this application so that the applicant may work with staff regarding the size and the location of a pool. Berquist indicated that he does not want to create a false hope for the applicant by tabling this request. �` Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 17, 1997 Page 3 Evans stated that they only need one variance and that several properties along Lake Riley Boulevard have received variances. Watson responded that some of the homes on Lake Riley Boulevard have received variances because the lots were unbuildable without it. She stated that not being able to build a single family home is a hardship. Berquist stated that many of the homes on Lake Riley Boulevard were constructed prior to the land being platted and predate the ordinance. Evans asked why the City needs 30 feet of his property. Berquist stated that the applicant should submit a proposal that may work. Watson asked if the City could waive the $75.00 fee. Berquist stated that the item should be tabled so that staff and the applicant may work on an alternative design. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to table the variance application. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Al-Jaff informed the Board that the item needs to be voted on by September 30, 1997. Johnson asked if the $75.00 application fee could be waived for the applicant. Al-Jaff responded that she would investigate if the fee could be waived. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK WITHIN THE 75 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK OF LOTUS LAKE, ROBERT AND LAURA EVANS,331 DEERFOOT TRAIL Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Roger Stech stated that the former owner was granted a variance in 1990,however, the deck was never constructed. Berquist asked if the deck will be 38 feet from the wetland. Stech stated that the deck will not protrude past the boulder retaining wall. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 17, 1997 Page 4 Al-Jaff commented that this home is closer than any of the neighbor's decks to the wetland. She stated that the ordinance has been amended to reduce the setback to 40 feet and that the wetland will not be impacted. Berquist asked how you can tell the wetland will not be affected. Al-Jaff responded that the setback depends on the type of wetland and that the buffer offers protection. Watson asked if the buffer was natural protection. Berquist asked if the variance would be for 2 feet from the current wetland setback. Johnson stated that this application requested a lesser variance than that in 1990. Berquist asked why the deck is not brought into compliance with the code. Stech stated that the deck size is minimum for a round table chairs. Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to approve the variance from the wetland with conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated May 20, 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Berquist moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1997 AT 6:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Call to Order 1. Request for a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of a pool on property zoned PUDR and located at 331 Deerfoot Trail (Lot 10, Sunny Slope Addition), Robert and Laura Evans. 2. Approval of Minutes. Adjournment r CITY O F BOA DATE: UANUA EI CC DATE: 7�I/y76/17/97 • CASE #: 97-6 By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A ten(10)An eighteen(18) foot variance from the thirty(30) foot front yard setback requirement and a one(1)percent vafianc-e €rem the twenty five(25) for the construction of a pool. LOCATION: 331 Deerfoot Trail (Lot 10, Block 1, Sunny Slope Addition) APPLICANT: Robert and Laura Evans c1.. 331 Deerfoot Trail a. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q 445-0565 PRESENT ZONING: PUD R, Planned Unit Development Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 13,200 sq. ft. (.29 Acres) DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: RSF, Residential Single Family A-2, Agricultural Estate District Q. WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site 1.1.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is a double frontage lot that contains an existing single-family residence. FIP (I) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Evans Variance "1 June 17, 1997 Page 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS UPDATE On June 17, 1997 the Board reviewed and tabled this application. The Board felt that staff and the applicant should work together to come up with a more appropriate location for the pool. At this meeting, the Board and the applicant questioned why the back yard was considered a front yard. Staff stated that as long as a property line abuts a public street it shall be considered a front yard. The applicant has property lines which abut two streets, therefore, they technically have two front yards although it is generally used as their rear yard. Staff contacted other communities and found that they similarly consider any yard that borders on a street to be a front yard and should, therefore, maintain front yard setbacks. Setbacks on all yards that abut public streets are important for uniformity, aesthetics, open space, safety and visibility, utilities and snow storage. The proposal has been updated to lessen the variance request. Staff has worked with Valley Pools and the applicant to locate the pool in an area that lessens the variance required. The variance from the impervious surface requirement has been eliminated. The staff report has been changed to reflect the new proposal. The new information is in bold and the old information has been struck through. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-615 requires that all structures maintain a minimum of a thirty (30) foot setback from the front and rear property lines (Attachment 2). twenty five (25)percent fth + tallot area• Section 20-904 states that swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side and rear setback of ten (10) feet(Attachment 3). BACKGROUND The subject property is located in Sunny Slope Addition. This planned unit development was approved in 1977. Of the 12 lots in this development, 6 have a double frontage, meaning, Lots 7-12 abut Lake Riley Blvd. to the south and Deerfoot Trail to the north. Therefore, the properties must maintain a front yard setback on both streets. This PUD required a 20 foot setback along Deerfoot Trail and a 30 foot setback along Lake Riley Boulevard. The reduced setback intended to compensate for the decreased lot depth. The existing residence does meet Evans Variance June 17, 1997 Page 3 these setback requirements. The lot has approximately 60 feet of frontage on Deerfoot Trail and 169 feet of frontage on Lake Riley Boulevard. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback (actually the rear of the home)requirement and approximately a 1 percent variance from the 25 percent maximum lot coverage requirement to construct a pool. The 16 foot by 30 2 foot, rectangular- shaped kidney shaped pool is proposed to be located south and west east of the existing residence. The applicant would prefer that the pool be located on the eastern side. The corners of the pool have been cut and it has been shifted closer to the home to lessen the variance request. The proposal does not include the decking or the fence. The contractor stated that typically a 3 foot decking is placed around the peel: The pool will be including the decking, would bring the pool approximately 20 feet from the property line that abuts Lake Riley Boulevard. The decking is typically 3 feet around the pool, however, the actual setback will be measured from the edge of the pool not the decking. Also, City Code states that an in- ground swimming pool shall be protected by a fence with a minimum height of 5 feet. Typically, a pool is permitted in the rear yard as long as a 10 foot setback is maintained in the side and rear yard. In this case, the applicant has Lake Riley Boulevard bordering on the rear of the home so the 30 foot setback must be maintained rather than the 10 foot. In addition, the yard is technically a front yard so the pool would not be permitted by the City Code. The revised proposal has the pool encroaching only 10 feet into the required setback. In order to provide a greater setback from the street, the applicant has decided to remove the deck that is located on the eastern side of the property. The majority of the proposed pool front yard setback and technically this property has two front yards. Staff has eliminated the variance from the lot coverage requirement. The City will not consider this to be impervious surface as water can collect in the pool. Staff has calculated decking will exceed the 25 percent maximum lot coverage requirement. The residence and the driveway cover 2,728 sq. ft. of the lot and the pool area is approximately 750 sq. ft. This additional impervious surface increases the hard surface coverage to 26 percent, 1 percent beyond what is permitted by ordinance. The lot area-is--1-34 q. o 3, 300 sn ft is peFn itted . covered by a hard surface. The applicant contends that the variance is needed to provide a safe alternative for their child and for daily exercise (See Attachment 1). The reasons presented are inconsistent with the conditions for granting a variance. According to Section 20-58, a variance may be granted if the Evans Variance June 17, 1997 Page 4 enforcement of the chapter would cause a hardship. Staff believes that the enforcement of thea 0 foot setback requirement is not a hardship. The property has a reasonable use�rth compared to those within 500 feet. A single family home with an attached garage exists on this property. The inability to construct a pool on a property is not a hardship. Many residents do not have a pool on their property and still enjoy a reasonable use. Staff has discussed this proposal in detail with the applicant prior to the submittal of this request and explained that the variance would not be recommended by staff as a hardship has not been demonstrated. Staff also explained that the pool will have to be engineered to sustain the slope in the yard. A retaining wall consisting of keystone brick, wood or boulder would be appropriate. a-peel-is-net appropriatethis ya - FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue .� hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The applicants have not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of this variance. The property can and has been put to reasonable use as a single family home exists on this site. Staff surveyed Sunny Slope Addition and found that all properties have maintained the appropriate setback (decks may encroach 5 feet, so the setback would be 25 feet rather than the 30 foot) along Lake Riley Boulevard. The applicant has an opportunity to use and enjoy their property without the pool. Approving this variance would depart from the existing standards and would create a new setback along Lake Riley Boulevard. In addition, it may allow for a proliferation of variances. When this report was written no vas b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally,to other property within the same zoning classification. Evans Variance June 17, 1997 Page 5 c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Although, the variation does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the property, the applicant does have a reasonable use of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Staff believes that the hardship is entirely self-created. The applicant knew when they bought the property that it has two street frontages. The proposal for the pool itself is creating a hardship. Once again, the inability to construct a pool is not a hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare. If the variance is approved, the applicant will be allowed to encroach further into a requirement setback that abuts a public street without a hardship. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair neighborhood property values. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the request for a 10 an-1-8 foot variance from the 30 foot setback requirement and the • +'_ ,� , ag based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: Evans Variance -� June 17, 1997 Page 6 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant has an opportunity to enjoy a reasonable use of the property without constructing a pool." If the Board of Adjustments and Appeals should grant the variance the following conditions shall apply: 1. The applicant shall have the pool engineered by a registered engineer. 2. The applicant shall provide type III erosion control. 3. The applicant shall comply with swimming pool fence requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks -•--� 3. Section 20-904, Accessory Structures 4. Revised Site Plan 5. Property Owners 6. Minutes from the June 17, 1997 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting CI i)q49/7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CITY OF CHeNHdcsFni CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 MAY 3 0 1597 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ROberA Ay'j LQV YD EVCC S OWNER: ADDRESS: 33 I Jer 40-i 1'Yct% I ADDRESS: X1�h�1Q -1 TELEPHONE (Day time) VIE—OS 626-- TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) v cvo Subdivision' TOTAL FEE$ 7 G iC tiD,P4 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. (.�ba-1 `Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11" reduced copy of ansparency for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • PROJECT NAME LOCATION �'J �, _f I LEGAL DESCRIPTION �, , �"` 1 �— (� Y " +/` ie - TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES /\ NO PRESENT ZONING \ < (G tl ri() REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION V!'1() �- REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION r REASON FOR THIS REQUEST _"1 " ;J L _ a ( (1 "Y 1�'. .1 ( 7 '_I �1 �eri- (( :rA . ',• 6 .r� i -� 1 `i ,� � �;�,! �;_ i ; �j /(1 1 I This application must be completed.inf full'and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within/en business days of application submittal. A written __ notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title,Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature&Applicant "" Date Signature of Fee Owner / Date Application Received on b/ >Jg7 Fee Paid 4 r76 .oP r�Receipt No. / 4 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted,a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITY OF CHANHASSEN May 28, 1997 MAY 3 0 1997 CH/11Vf1 wJCw vcNT Dear Sirs and Madams of City Council: I, Laura Evans,.of sound mind, am in need of a formal variance. I need a footage easement to be lessened on our property of ten feet by the City, so that we will be able to properly place and construct an area for a pool. The pool will provide physical exercise to be performed daily (weather permitting), to alleviate anxiety and stress which I am under medical care for. Also, I must provide a safe physical routine for our daughter because of her A.D.H.D. condition. Three- out-of-three persons in this household either, because of mental conditions, laborious daily duties of work, a strive for excellence and in the nature of"providing for" our family would benefit. Our lives are a)365 day) year around battle to live co-existingly with all our surroundings and habitat. Thirdly, I also take care of mentally retarded persons who are in need of daily exercise and privacy. During the months of May, June, July, August and September, my stress and anxiety levels will be drastically reduced. For other reasons extremely private to me, I cannot swim in public pools and/or recreational lakes. As Rob and I are living here now, we plan to stay to see through to our daughters education/special needs. The yard parcel part of the property becomes totally useless. I volunteer and work at our Carver County Schools. We are very loving and caring people, we need this variance to go through for the health and future of myself, as well as, our daughter's future. We will provide the most spectacular landscape available to us, around the pool area, which will enhance the beauty of our beautiful Lake Riley neighborhood. I would like to thank you for your precious time and physical energy given to hear this plea for help and accept the understanding of our human needs. We need to "all" recognize each others "time in need,"just as our "neighboring flood victims" prayed and hoped for our help - basic needs - and fin c al needs to rebuild their lives. Th yo Laura . Evans & amily Cu O-CtC17) ►WL § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note—Inasmuch as there exists a§20-595,the provisions added by§3 of Ord.No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597-20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. 'RSF' SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 • ZONING § 20-615 (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. • The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements,exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety(90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp.No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lots Where Frontage le Measured At Setback Line • L •di l0 I c • ��� ♦ ♦ I t• •. 1 • • ••• • • •.' • (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five(125)feet.The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building _ setback line. . Neck ! Flap Lots Fton Lot Lin • .west i I i � • 1 1 1 1 1 1 100' Lot Width 1 • i i�~I I I I I 1 L — j--- • (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty(30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note—Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2,were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617-20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII. "R-4"MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 -Ctc�C1 ZONING § 20-904 (2) Concrete mixing plants. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-817-20-900. Reserved. ARTICLE XXIII. GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-901. Overhead transmission lines. Installation of overhead transmission lines in excess of sixty-nine(69)kilovolts shall require the issuance of a conditional use permit through any district located in the city. The city council,in addition to the standards established in article IV,may also impose other conditions as deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 2, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-902. Multiple principal buildings on same lot. In any single-family detached residential district not more than one (1) principal building shall be permitted to be erected on a single building lot. Groupings of buildings in other districts may only be permitted by conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 3, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-903. Zoning lots. (a) The designation of a zoning lot shall be approved by the city planner if it complies with the lot requirements of the district in which it is located and has a single tax identification number. (b) Interior lot lines within a zoning lot shall be disregarded in applying setbacks and other zoning ordinance standards. (c) After designation of a zoning lot the lot may not be subdivided without complying with the city's subdivision regulations. (Ord. No. 129, § 2, 6-4-90) Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (a) A detached accessory structure, except a dock, shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard.No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions: (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. These structures may encroach into the rear setback as follows: a. Less than one hundred forty (140) square feet, minimum rear setback is five (5) feet. Supp. No. 9 1232.7 § 20-904 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. One hundred forty-one (141) to three hundred ninety-nine (399) square feet, minimum rear setback is ten (10) feet. c. Four hundred (400) square feet and above, minimum rear setback is thirty(30) feet. (2) On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings may be located in the front or rear yard but must comply with front,side and applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks and may not occupy more than thirty (30) percent of the yard in which it is built. (3) Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side and rear yard setback of ten (10) feet, [but] however, must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks. (b) A detached accessory structure may occupy not more than thirty(30)percent of the area of any rear yard. (c) For parcels with less than three (3) acres in any residential or agricultural district, no accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or commenced prior to the erection, construction,or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use,but may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently removed, destroyed, or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be removed or discontinued within twelve (12) months. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 5, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 145, § 1, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 215, § 1, 8-8-94) Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. All single-family detached homes shall: (1) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements of the state building code. (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: a. If a one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundred sixty (960) square feet. b. If a split level design, have an area of one thousand fifty (1,050) square feet. c. If a split foyer and two-story design,have an area of six hundred(600)square feet on the first floor. d. A two-car garage must be provided with the single-family structure. (3) Have an earth covered,composition, shingled or tiled roof or other materials approved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. (4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other information required shall indicate the height, size, design and the appearance of all elevations of the proposed building and a description of the construction materials proposed to be used. Supp. No. 9 1232.8 942 l ID=6126944934 PP• 06-19-97 k- VALLEY POOLS �� � � ����' `l. - t v�� v��N 140 SCAte , nATB: - / lu - 97 ...• • 31 b -i --fr G tie• s&� iti66 \ ` 8 ,. - lir -?,1516 ' • LAI, ,E. 2,1,,i —6.114 , Qoo p� W� '� tvG NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 1 AND APPEALS TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1997 . 11641 at 6:00 p.m. III�j� City Hall - 690 Coulter Drive Council Chambers Lake Riley SUBJECT: Rear Yard Setback Variance for Construction of a Pool APPLICANT: Laura Evans LOCATION: 331 Deerfoot Trail NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Laura Evans, is requesting an 18 foot variance to the 30 foot rear yard setback to allow the construction of a pool on property zoned RSF and located at 331 Deerfoot Trail. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 5, 1997. ' DENNIS R & ANN BAKER LUCILLE LOUISE REMUS ROBERT & DORIS ROGERS 4917 DIANE DR 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD .......N.MINNETONKA, MN 55343 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD & KATHRYN SITTER EUNICE ELIZABETH KOTTKE JEFFREY P & HEIDI S NELSON 9249221 LAKE RILEY BLVD 300 DEERFOOT TRL LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK JR & WENDY L EGGERS ALAN & KAREN DIRKS ROBERT D & KRISTIN S REBERTUS320 DEERFOOT TRL 9251 KIOWA TRL 331 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES F & PATRICIA M DOLEJSI GEORGE B DEWITT PAMELA N GUYER 9260 KIOWA TRL 3127 4TH ST SE 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL & CRYSTAL SCHACHTERLE RONALD YTZEN DANIEL M & JEAN CHRISTENSEN 6350 DOGWOOD AVE 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD 360 DEERFOOT TRL EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FREDERICK POTTHOFF III & JUDITH C KEVIN M & LINDA P SHARKEY JAMES LEE HENDRICKSON POTTHOFF 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD 380 DEERFOOT TRL 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN H & KAREN L DIRKS JOHN W ARDOYNO PAUL E & GAIL A TERRY 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 400 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LELAND G SAPP & DIANE K TAYLOR C/O PAUL KENT OLSON RICHARD R & JILL M MADORE CERIDIAN EMPLOYER SERVICES 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD 381 DEERFOOT TRL 5354 PARKDALE DR #200 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 CURTIS G KRIER SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O LESLIE SCOTT ALAN WIRTH 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD TIDSTROM 361 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY L & KELLY R HASTINGS JOY A TANNER STEVEN A & PATRICIA A SEKELY 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 341 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 • CHRISTOPHER T MCGRATH & CHRISTINE M MCP'-TH 58; LINGER RD • • • EDhliX, MN 55436 RENT TAGE RAMLIDEN & NAOMI • KAHN-RAMLIDEN 321 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 • DALE B & DIANE KUTTER 301 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O LESLIE TIDSTROM 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 , DALE L & RANDI E BOYER STEVEN A & RENEE WILLIAMS DAVID P & KAREN L DAOUST 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD 7600 HERITAGE RD 9470 FOXFORD RD �"*"\ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BENJAMIN E & PATRICIA SWENSON SCOTT A & SUSAN M BABCOCK RICHARD A & JOANNE M LAMETTRY 9015 LAKE RILEY RD 8570 MAGNOLIA TRL-APT 112 9490 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT PETER C & GEORGE-ANN LILLIE DENNIS M MILLS 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9355 KIOWA TRL 9510 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ELDON & RAE JEAN BERKLAND RICHARD C BLUMENSTEIN & JILL RICHARD J CHADWICK 9261 KIOWA TRL KEOUGH BLUMENSTEIN 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9361 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD & KATHRYN SITTER JOHN W & BEVERLY J BELL LAKE RILEY WOODS HOMEOWNERS 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9371 KIOWA TRL 1660 HWY 100 S SUITE 428 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 BARRY A & HARRIET F BERSHAW MARK A & PAMELA K MOKSNES DAVID 0 HANSEN 9271 KIOWA TRL 9381 KIOWA TRL 108 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK JR & WENDY L EGGERS JOYCE E KING WILLIAM T & CAROL ANN GRAY 9251 KIOWA TRL 9391 KIOWA TRL 50 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM J O'NEILL WILLIAM L & LINDA C JANSEN STEPHEN L WHITEHILL 9550 FOXFORD RD 240 EASTWOOD CT 7001 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSON WILLIAM S HENAK & KRISTIN ALLERS MICHAEL & CRYSTAL SCHACHTERLE 9283 KIOWA TRL 280 EASTWOOD CT 6350 DOGWOOD AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSON WILLIAM S HENAK & KRISTIN ALLERS STEVEN F & KATHLEEN M BURKE 9283 KIOWA TRL 280 EASTWOOD CT 9591 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM & SHARON PREDOVICH RICHARD D & FRIEDA A OLIN RONALD YTZEN , 9c MEADOWLARK LN 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CA,...,.ASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD P VOGEL JAMES LEE HENDRICKSON FREDERICK POTTHOFF III & JUDITH C 105 PIONEER TRL 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD POTTHOFF CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL T & TERESA A MONK ALAN H & KAREN L DIRKS JOHN W ARDOYNO 9671 MEADOW LARK LN 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL J & LISA A REILLY LELAND G SAPP & DIANE K TAYLOR C/O PAUL KENT OLSON 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DR CERIDIAN EMPLOYER SERVICES 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD GLENVIEW, IL 60025 5354 PARKDALE DR #200 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O LESI DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH CURTIS G KRIER TIDSTROM 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RAYMOND M & JUDITH N LEWIS GREGORY L & KELLY R HASTINGS JOY A TANNER 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT H & CHERYL A PETERSON DENNIS R & ANN BAKER LUCILLE LOUISE REMUS 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES L TONJES C/O GENERAL MILLS EUNICE ELIZABETH KOTTKE INC-B BARNES 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD PO BOX 1113 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440 J P JR & JUDITH M HUNGELMANN ALAN & KAREN DIRKS 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD 331 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN B JR & MARLYN G GOULETT GEORGE B DEWITT 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD 3127 4TH ST SE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 1997 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II and Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL, ROBERT AND LAURA EVANS, 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report. Robert Evans questioned why the yard abutting Lake Riley Boulevard is a front yard rather than a rear yard because they use it as a back yard. He stated that several variances have been granted on Lake Riley Boulevard. Mr. Evans stated that the pool will be engineered, the landscaping will be professionally done and that the project will exceed City Code standards. He also stated that he would like to construct this pool so that his daughter will have a safe place to play. As to —� measurements of setbacks, he stated that through his experience in the asphalt business, the setback is measured from the center of the road. Steve Berquist asked why the property has two front yards. He asked if the original plat showed the two front yards. Al-Jaff stated that the yard is considered to be front yard because it abuts a public street. Carol Watson stated the she has two front yards on her property because it is a corner lot. Berquist asked if pools can be constructed in the 30 foot rear yard setback. Sharmin Al-Jaff stated that based on square footage, accessory structures must maintain a certain setback in the rear yard. Berquist questioned if the pool would be permitted in a rear yard and if the setbacks were specified in the original plat. Al-Jaff stated that a pool could be constructed in the rear yard and that the setbacks were shown on the plat. Evans stated he was told the only thing he can construct in this yard is a driveway. He --� questioned why he can construct a driveway and not a pool. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes May 20, 1997 Page 2 Al-Jaff stated the driveway could exceed the 25 percent hard surface coverage requirement. She stated that the property already has access. Ms. Al-Jaff stated that a hardship must be demonstrated and that a reasonable use does exist on the property. Berquist stated that staff interprets the Code. He stated that a variance is granted because a hardship is demonstrated. Evans stated that their hardship is a family friend and that they would just like to improve their property. Berquist stated that he appreciates the fact that the applicant wants to improve the property. He stated the original developer maximized the property and constrained their ability to construct a structure in that yard. He stated that he would like the pool to work without approving a variance. Al-Jaff stated that staff had not reviewed the proposal that the applicant had presented at the meeting. She stated that the applicant had proposed a kidney-shaped pool. The staff report and the recommendation was based upon what was submitted to the city. Evans stated that they never intended on constructing kidney-shaped pool, but a rectangular. Kirchoff stated that she spoke with Becky at Valley Pools. She stated alternative locations were investigated, however, all would require a variance. Watson stated that the issue is the lot is less than 15,000 sq. ft. She stated that it is the responsibility of the owner to determine if a structure can be built prior to purchase. Berquist stated that he is unsure if he would be willing to grant a variance and that he is uncertain as to what the applicant is requesting. He stated that the 1%variance from the lot coverage requirement does not concern him, but the variance to the setback does. He stated that he understands the desire but would like to see a pool plan that is less extensive. Evans stated that they cannot use the back yard. Watson stated that staff did not receive the information that the applicant presented at the meeting and that staff is at a disadvantage since they have not seen the revised plan. She stated that she would like to table this application so that the applicant may work with staff regarding the size and the location. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes May 20, 1997 Page 3 Berquist stated that he does not want to create a false hope for the applicant by tabling this request. Evans stated that he only needs one variance. Watson stated that the homes on Lake Riley Boulevard have received variances because the lots were unbuildable without it. She stated that not being able to build a single family home is a hardship. Berquist stated that many of the homes on Lake Riley Boulevard were constructed prior to the land being platted and predate the ordinance. Evans asked why the City needs 30 feet of his property. Berquist stated that the applicant should submit something that may work and that is less obtrusive. Watson asked if the City could waive the $75.00 fee. Berquist stated that the item should be tabled so that staff and the applicant may work on an alternative design. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to table the variance application. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Al-Jaff informed the Board that the item needs to be voted on by September 30, 1997. Johnson asked if the $75.00 application fee could be waived for the applicant. Al-Jaff stated that she would investigate this. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK WITHIN THE 75 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK OF LOTUS LAKE, ROBERT AND LAURA EVANS, 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Roger Stech stated that the former owner was granted a variance in 1990, however, the deck was never constructed. Berquist asked if the deck will be 38 feet from the wetland.