1997-05-20 agenda FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1997 AT 6:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM
1. Call to Order.
2. Request for a 6.5 foot variance to the required 25 foot front yard setback for the
construction of a 14' x 15.6' deck to be located 18.5' from the front lot line on property
zoned RSF and located at 600 Fox Hill Drive (Lots 3203-3210, Carver Beach), Rick and
Dee Ann Hale.
3. Request for a 1.6 ft. variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a
deck on property zoned RSF and located at 361 Deerfoot Trail, Scott Wirth.
4. Request for a 8.5 ft. to the front yard setback to construct an open porch on property
zoned RSF and located at 6735 Nez Perce Drive, Ken and Toni Lucas.
5. Approval of Minutes.
6. Adjournment.
42,
CITY 0 F BOA DATE: 5/20/97
\ 1 CUANUAEI CC DATE:
•
CASE #: 97-2
By: Kirchoff:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: A request for a 6.5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the
construction of a.deck.
LOCATION: 600 Fox Hill Drive
(Lots 3203-3210, Carver Beach)
V APPLICANT: Rick and Dee Ann Hale
600 Fox Hill Drive
11. Chanhassen, MN 55317
a-
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: Approximately 16,000 sq. ft. (.36 Acres)
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES: RSF, Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains an existing single-family residence.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
0 0 O
0
CN1 O O O O a p 00 O O O O
+"I ,-1 Q1 ao N ko in ep cO N O -�1-1
ri
Christmas He
__. _ nnep?n.esy. my
r ..
w�;
dSt t
Noy,►williFF
�� Lake ,' • , ��7a-
'Ilft(011101
i",
�� w ` - mow,' 1A►�G� �xzi� �� Irg
,, o .� �•� �� '� �lr• . � 14ivA !la•
AO/ gill . .* •
.4 1in .,ii -.40#1, , *14,'41 ' I ' 4 . "'
/42k
cprjearseptuisis
44ti
gi • liview i_itemo ..5 el ,N/ , - 4aS Ii01',175*4 V Mit
Lk\ g MI �,t7�FA Um c� t !'� �i``-� A : North ��411
t 4 47 ' ito, ROE ITIOS`'' IIII"'"oill.""
tilt., ••\ ,i `‘ 1 iirt4-441V921111211111
�I��V. j
Ilia CarverB?st"� ,� N�
�-,11/AbS `I ,Lotus ' �•' �, !�'
■iT�l3�I�Z 1��.��►_a �� it Awl rmir r...cl.
/�c� s, `ii `1 Lake p VIç $*:
mi siiMigiis1!ttf0 / �D Ale) Z: Park � � ,
iii o,
Car' B4Jh • - ,J 1\4&
- .„ ,ky
Carver 1 !:q -0-`� F
mim in ew�r. �/ ,, mum A� Beach 4,
r+a�� /RT`� �!����::. ,`'s Park V '�,�
F-1 El LEA L.• ' �� Uila. • °' t`
'•I ••jI A3&I r T1,a Cfik 'OPOSE I VARIANCE I -- 1�
.r.I.... i■■ In,„.. ►.nun
r0 1111._Ar lily kitt...-
i*tk.o1 x, Ar*ii1t '
..
tal, 40li rr-a..i r,",♦ ry ad*r IM"iS.r 4f
hI rIh
4 A *I =
:?1
J P oust in% * g ' 44t0lra
.?,•,yama :=Mead. o ��d �� . ,�s tr,
1. ..i.i..1:� Green �� ► —9 , l .
od I�i{izgiii"g Park ,1� �1 * ,m �'. ; .i•
7a ' ,
f \ U I i- y�] ��, \\ \` '`�—•
L(1, l _�(�;;ram"Mtn
�� Cu y ' / g:en _ ! l J �` r B.ss .,.
Ti �I . l ff
1 c� C •p • ,► • `�_- ?- ighla /yam. r. Doleai
'v ��� / ' 111114111140 1-- Cimarrpq > � �is
c JI ' Or nip a -I sir owa/ :s `4:4 Dr rr ,\\{,xou
v, - Ca <,e. '�74 ' 1 Vic' �. i �e
- - India . �� lei r,, --1 ,c�
Hale Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-615 of the City Code requires all structures to maintain a minimum of a thirty(30) foot
setback from the front property line(Attachment 2).
Section 20-908 of the City Code states that unenclosed decks may project five (5) feet into a
required yard(Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
In June 1989, a request was made by a previous owner for a 12 foot front yard variance from the
required 30 foot setback for the construction of a deck (Attachment 4). The staff report states that
the applicant had an opportunity to use the property and construct a deck within the setbacks. This
request was denied because staff nor the Board believed that there was a hardship.
This home was constructed as a reverse walk-out, meaning the front door enters into the basement
and the back door is on the second floor. Thus, the applicants have experienced difficulty moving
large items in and out of the residence. The applicant would like to install a patio door and deck on
the southern end of the home. The applicants feel that this will solve the access problem. The back
door has a landing and stairs, however,the door is too narrow to maneuver large items.
ANALYSIS
The current application is a request for a 6.5 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard
setback for unenclosed decks to construct a(14' x 15.6') 218 sq. ft. deck on the front of an existing
residence. City Code already permits unenclosed decks to project 5 feet into the front yard, thus,
the 25 foot rather than the 30 foot front yard setback. The deck is proposed to be located 18.5 feet
from the front property line. Currently,the residence is located 32.5 feet from the front lot line.
According to the applicant, the interior design of the residence has caused a hardship. An undue
hardship means that property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. The physical characteristics of this site do not prohibit the
applicant from constructing a deck in another location.
The Carver Beach area predates the zoning ordinance,therefore,variances have been recommended
for certain situations. Staff has reviewed the variances that were granted in the area and found that
they generally involve lots with a small area or steep topography. For instance, a variance was
granted to the applicant at 580 Fox Hill Drive in 1991. This variance allowed the applicant to
construct an addition 22 feet from the front property line. The staff report indicated that the lot area
was nonconforming and that the average front yard setback in this area is approximately 22 feet.
Hale Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 3
Another variance was granted in 1993 for the property located at 6880 Lotus Trail. This variance
was granted because the lot fronts three streets and the proposal decreased the nonconformity.
Staff suggests that the deck be placed on the eastern side of the residence or that the door on the
western side by widened for large items. Another option would be to construct the deck out to the
25 foot setback,however,the deck would only be 7.5 feet in depth.
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 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: Staff believes that the physical conditions of the site do not create a hardship for
the applicant. That is, the size or topography of the lot does not prohibit the full use of the
property. This is a large lot for this area. The applicant does have a reasonable opportunity
to construct a deck on the eastern side of the house within the setbacks. Although staff does
acknowledge the inconvenience of the interior of the applicant's home, this does not, in
itself, constitute a hardship. The ordinance also states that a reasonable use includes those
comparable uses within 500 feet. The average front yard setback within this distance is 22
feet. Allowing a setback not to exceed 22 feet will not create a precedence but will
maintain pre-existing standards within the neighborhood. This will allow a 10.5 foot deep
deck rather than the requested 14 foot.
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.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Hale Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 4
Finding: The purpose of the variation does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding Staff believes that the hardship is partially self-created. The applicant knew prior
to purchasing the home that the interior was poorly designed.
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. Staff has
safety concerns with the distance the deck will be from Fox Hill Road.
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 property
values within the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommends the denial of a 6.5 foot variance based upon
the findings presented in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
variance.
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a deck and enjoy their property."
Staff would recommend approval of a 3 foot variance, based on the neighborhood average setback
of approximately 22 feet. This variance would bring the deck out 10.5 feet from the home and thus
would line up this existing home with adjacent properties.
Hale Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant's Letter and Application
2. Section 20-615, Lot requirements and setbacks
3. Section 20-908, Yard regulations
4. Variance 89-5
5. Site Plan
6. Deck elevations
7. Property Owners
8. Letter from Neighbor, 620 Fox Hill Road
CO-TO C,h y, -
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: /)/ G/`C Dee/ Ian //q/€ OWNER: /[ / c/(IDiee4/1 f74�t�
ADDRESS: (0O foX /Ij// On ✓e- ADDRESS: COO FOX MI/ .O'i ✓me_
£/'lr{n ho e Fi ��3/7 C L x'r1 ,L7 c.cf h '224 S 3T7/7
TELEPHONE(Daytime) g J-.2.0 3 locir/r TELEPHONE: Z/75/ ,29 63 //o i e_
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit 17-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,$400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ 70 00
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.
'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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 L'e.c /\
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION-
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST / p 1CO j`e Cf o i Voc,r ft//ix/ch /Se.-
Qccess to 77 e `i,/ign ce ant/ /aryc-'<- 72/r'n;Lure,
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 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 ten 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
extension r d b a plicant.
Ignature of Applicant Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date l I
Application Received on 2, I IG I 1/ Fee Paid �� Receipt No. I 1 J
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.
ITT
C� 1 7CL G' �� D.4
r••.: O
O • D •
• • A-a-t1 4 /1-a7ADL. ao a_ Vak .,,14-W IV
C /Aida a ch_d_ iki oc)lE `lG'X /4 164
J2 Gk, f/accru,
tty-ace a) -e-k-e_, ekc-gle Ze_crx_4_s_ -71,c&,
G -th / i. & yLeruce_e_. GvG e3-2 '.(74-/L_
U
& - 7 k�.- -) ( lid
.._ .uttu__ a.ex.7.64.d Vo --6-4.e, h diode,. ,441e- ioii_e_deg,
afei
.6' Z ,e-e_ O L- /1�7(;4,c .e., CEO J1 nel— fZ-kz ham . 77cx_ hc9 . cet CZ ,/��/(�.
aztLle6D t.. -) zoi--4.) -"(-4, J1-61t6 4‘'L4-4- ,-a-x-c4:A-eivi
"-cto OrkA_. had_g-nte4c- _ /0 404-) czt" qe -tic
4 , c,
leeei4a-l&O�� -irrrei:L 6:a/i Lev � � •••
• • /6" Co ,,54 s,^tome
a- 1/ate 1Le- 9 // .-, 1....
• 4 6/1 ie. / h-O6A)_ G -c — t� 1 • •
r:.
Ly A_ JW r).60- ) Vie. 01 _ IAA a
• .:::;.;•,. !%
_, . ,..
._,, ,
E. . ► • •D •
► • Ael
p •► • •• •
IC2SY/8 i.94 --a?
?T'°--e — ' r) ' V- IV/
- 7)-7-2 grr -"Tr -?-0/ "Pr???2 -7-1A52- p7p717 07)
-vvz )1 97 -- - p`') f a% vU ( 10-a"
0)-1;-r?9 gfir 4y-rrr) o9--. 7 (ovr-ro-dr?-0/ —nit/
� / 7P U;
' . 50r.7171177 (49-v . -r -?-7-69(-61 PTP7r1
'ic-ity r-rorvw /0 2-r-1 r3-0-9',2 ,t9-7422e/f '71-ori'v?
• 4 '-/-) nh1P2 / f 7 - 1 • •
-f? , v l'f'(/) D • j•
ci.v:rir)c,- )ci-,
• • j� Y2 a 112 r r --a• te' rmei
.•
" /" 1 • •
won'' fir'/ - 9. pc -rp-'r-v ‘09t9
..._ " i'vZIL'',2 .74-1119 ‘-r- J w -14-) pr-7-72-rpoi
aLti ct rat
ZONING § 20-613
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.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Garage.
(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)
Supp.No. 8 1209
§ 20-614 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90)
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
illustrated below.
Lots Where Frontage Is
Measured At Setback Line
! •e' efe�Iv���' • L
r-! -
•
(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
Supp. No. 8 1210
ZONING § 20-615
setback line.
. Neck / Flag Lots
• Fron Lot Lin •
somps
a I $ I
• I 1 1 1
1 1 I '
1001Lot Width 1 1 1 .
• J i 1 •
la«M 1
I 1
L _ L__._.!_
(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.
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.
Supp.No. 8 1210.1
ZONING § 20-908
increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required
for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations.
The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measure-
ments shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question,
subject to the following qualifications:
(1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed.
(2) A yard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provi-
sions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for
another building.
(3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard
setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provided,
however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks.
(4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets.
Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street.
(5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions: -`
a. Into any required front yard,or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line,
cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance
not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not
exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings
may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing
shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building;bay windows,balconies,
open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet;
unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five(5)feet and
shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be
permitted by conditional use permit.
b. The above-named features may project into any required yard adjoining an inte-
rior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above.
c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence
on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location
provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a
ten-foot minimum front yard.
d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the following are per-
mitted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory
structures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage.
Balconies, breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one-
story bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five(5)
feet.
Supp. No. 6 •
1233
cut-----ne_tini-cy)L 4
I _
,fi `. I TY 0 F D A DATE: June 26, 1989
\'\ 1 CHAINHASSEN C.C. DATE:
i v
CASE NO: 89-5 Variance
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: A 12 Foot Front Yard Variance to the Required 30 Foo
Setback for the Construction of a Deck
F-
Q
U LOCATION: 600 Fox Hill Drive
Cl_ 6/2347
/aG/.?
APPLICANT: Tom Michelson
600 Fox Hill Drive 6/2645
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 16 , 000 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
S- RSF; single family
QE- RSF; single family
Qw- RSF; single family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
tn
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Existing single family residence with
the easterly portion in a natural state.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
3018-- 1 is;Alita
VOL"♦ -- mho.. IN -4 * V .i
, a . r
. . ■ .411111/
i Oa oilktti . 11,___rr , , i:
°I ..," ,
,/,.,,A7. fi‘. -44,2s. 0 1#a 1.-11.11 m iiiiic ci{ /- iliiJv4� ,11■p11
f_r:_....._..,
..-.?."1...ila1-
laizd:::: .ti:10e
/
rri ingroilkspij.pl_:.1p1U1 ,
(-0' .-, _ too ra
((- -' 1.110 4„ rAcca4,_ .,41:141 11144.11-1 i . . * ,..
- :-.ONO liai mow. �,,igotj- V
) !, • ,, 40.41404.4;;;;;;;61111111;;
\ -_.\� `4P' pLr12,i1 I . -lam
= \1111111B pea..: , L.--; : z
\ &V#r.111: . i AS
it 44,r I 1-:ra? 0
�� tom: LJ:
1) _ .� -,
coo 4137:18174,
WeillIVO -Y-1
041,6 0 .• V ?! . ( ,-/---- .11,0; .1,o e..It . **4
1 .31,01•VtAcb t Nivqs. ra um. ...k e 0
Ilifr
.4 ON,
• f1 ,10.2_ _ imir (/ EMIL -41 ":74t, :s. ..._—an . si... vi z too .•,.
oinum„,...
. ,,,,„: 43. ...
... -4r-is '1, \‘\
.4`41 '''s 04414h 4111 ti 11. 1 -i'Vapos 7)V Si r t4i---
4c-
• 044"/ opuiriNa -000.. !.- ,. ),4„.../t,IA,,,-s,,!-, . .;,-L
‘ AOLOA:;.:‘ lAll la.I""1" AV PO ill I I 1. "KW
ill
/I, 41k4\ -- \, ‘11.Z!:.1 12EL A 'ilittrcit"04411. dar_iii reme_;
- ____/ 1 '\\\ \\, . rgS:liall. to-:
�/ r. �' i
�b• . (( /,/ - bD rt shill�
Yv
Michelson Variance
June 26, 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The RSF District requires a 30 foot front yard setback and does
not permit structures within the front yard setback.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck on the front of
the existing house. The proposed deck will be located 18 feet
from the front yard property line and will require a 12 foot
variance to the 30 foot front yard setback. The existing house
is located in the northeastern corner of the subject site. Due
to the location of the house and the depth of the lot, the appli-
cant only has room on the east side of the house to construct a
deck within the required setbacks .
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the
Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
following facts :
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
* The literal enforcement of the chapter would not cause undue
hardship and practical difficulity in that the applicant still
has use of the property and does have area within the site
where the deck could be constructed within the setbacks.
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.
* The location of the house is causing the hardship but the
hardship is not caused by special conditions of the site.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights .
* The applicant has substantial enjoyment and property rights
with the existing residence.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self-created hardship.
* The location of the house is causing the hardship.
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.
Michelson Variance
June 26 , 1989
Page 3
* Granting of the variance would not be in keeping with the
zoning ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
The location of the house is resulting in hardship to the appli-
cant in locating a deck without requiring a variance. Although
the applicant is limited to only being allowed a deck on the
easterly side of the house without a variance, the hardship does
not meet the five requirements of the ordinance and could in fact
be considered a self created hardship. Therefore, staff must
recommend denial of the request for a front yard variance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application.
2. Site plan.
1 4
�!�R(4 i4 4�l '74\ .1 1 43
. ' f �t r ' a' r I■■■■■■■■■e ® fi. 1 ■ ■■■■■
: All ill ',, '42 rtks ll: ■�■■■■■■■■■■®�r I
4 S .' �
II •1. it
' li
id
■■ ■■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■ -
■1 !i ta ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■■
■
-1_
llill - -
I■14. ■i a■.... ■ ..E. ._ . ■■■■■ - t4i
MMEMMEMM ELM_
1111111. IMMIIM Al EMIMMM Milmillmaam _ WM -
■ I aia Ilm MIMI EMEMMMEMEM _
1m% 1al �! i... „a.. ■ ■Mm1 ■■■■ ■■
■ ■ ■ ■■■■ _ ■■■ 1111mMEms1MM
■ Mm_-__
___I
. 1... _.„
..„,.
■■ ■ !� ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■■
4I ■6 1 ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■ ■ -_ _ -
1 ■■ ■, ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■
:,j 2II!■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ i■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■ _
i l ■■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■ __ _
■ �- ' ■■■■. ■1 . 1 : . 'r ■■■ ■
■ ■ ■■ ., ■ ■■■■ . . 41 �i'l'! _ --
1 II■1i ■■■■■■®■■■■ ■i■■■ ■iIUU■1■■■ ■ __
;. . ■■■ ■■■1■ I■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■'A �:L�■ 1 in ■■