Loading...
1998-06-30 minutes CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 30, 1998 Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Steven Berquist and Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ENCLOSED PORCH, BLAIR AND NANCY ENTENMANN, 8372 STONE CREEK DRIVE Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Steve Berquist asked what the dotted line signifies on the plat. Cynthia Kirchoff responded that the lines were easements. Chris Winter stated that the home placement was dominated by the physical features and the Bluff Creek. She explained that they had to reduce the size of the hallway 6 inches for the house to fit on the lot. Berquist requested a definition of a rear yard. Kirchoff indicated that a rear yard is the opposite of the front yard. She went on to say that the front yard abuts the street. Ms. Winter stated that they are not building the porch to increase the value but utilize their back yard. She explained that they have many large trees in the rear yard and that they do not want to remove them for a porch. Ms. Winter stated that the switching the deck and the porch would not work because the porch would look into the half-bath. Carol Watson stated that she would like to make this plan work without a large variance. Berquist questioned if the rear yard could be redefined as a side yard because of the large bluff creek setback. Kirchoff responded that the setback is for planning and zoning purposes. Berquist stated that topography and elevation should determine setbacks. Willard Johnson stated that it is not the fault of the City that the homeowners built this home. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 2 Berquist requested that the rear yard be redefined as the side yard. Watson asked if the setback from the enclosed porch is 19 feet. Kirchoff responded that it is 19 feet. Berquist stated that the applicants should place the porch on the back of the house. Ms. Winter stated that their daughter's bedroom is in the ground level on the back of the house and the porch would affect the amount of light entering the room. Kim Beauclair, contractor, stated that the future owner's concerns are important however, he believes that an open deck would not impose on a neighboring property. Watson asked if the porch on the back of the house would be an option. Mr. Winter responded that windows are present in that area of the house. He stated that the windows are not the same size as a patio door. Mr. Beauclair indicated the existing trees in the rear yard will block the view of the structure. Berquist stated that this is a very wooded lot. Mr. Beauclair asked if the porch could be constructed if does not block the neighbor's view. Mr. Winter stated that the porch will be 3-season, never a four-season. Berquist stated that he would like to approve this variance by reorienting the setback. Johnson stated that he would like to see the porch go out the back. Mr. Winter stated that he has invested a large amount of money into the rear yard and does not want to construct the porch there. Berquist stated that he would like to find a viable way to change the interpretation of the side yard. Kirchoff responded that the City Attorney would have to be consulted regarding this interpretation. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 �' Page 3 Watson stated that she would like to table the request so that the matter may be discussed further. Berquist asked the applicants if they would object to the variance being tabled until the July 14th meeting. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to table the application until the July 14th meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A REQUEST FOR AN 18.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT BLUFF PROTECTION SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK, BILL AND LINDA JANSEN, 240 EASTWOOD COURT Kirchoff presented the report on this item. Berquist asked if the deck is proposed to be attached to the home. Kirchoff responded that the deck will be attached to the home. Berquist questioned the significance of the setback. Kirchoff responded that the setback intends to protect the bluff from erosion. Bill Jansen stated that the deck project for the deck began in 1995 when permit was approved for a deck that they decided not to construct. He noted that it was approved because of the staff oversight of the bluff protection setback. Mr. Jansen stated that staff did not inform them that the deck did not meet the setback. He asked that the City maintain its commitment that was made in 1995. Mr. Jansen stated that the current proposal is consistent with the intentions of the bluff setback. He explained that they decided to build the deck now because they have created a environmentally-friendly design. Mr. Jansen stated that the house addition was completed in 1995 based upon the idea that they can built a deck in the future. He stated that the current proposal is consistent with what the bluff setback intentions. Mr. Jansen also explained that they would not feel comfortable constructing their original proposal because of the excessive amount of hard surface. Linda Jansen stated that they revised their plans so that the bluff and existing environment would not be disturbed. Mr. Jansen stated that he disagrees with staff's findings in the report. He stated that they do have a hardship because the deck project is incomplete. He believes that they should not take the full responsibility of the hardship. He stated further that this proposal is much more environmentally-friendly. 4- Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 4 Ms. Jansen explained that the proposed deck and landscaping intends to preserve the property and the bluff. Mr. Jansen stated that the deck will not be visible from neighboring property because the majority of the deck is located on the ground. He requested permission to complete the project that he obtained permission for in 1995. Berquist asked when the bluff setback was adopted and when the permit for the original deck was approved. He stated that the setback was not enforced on the original application so this variance should be automatically approved. Kirchoff responded that the bluff setback was adopted city-wide in 1994 and that the building permit for the deck was incorrectly approved because the topography was not indicated on the survey. Watson stated that the variance should not be an automatic approved because the deck can be designed smaller. Berquist stated that there are neighbors with concerns about the variance. Watson asked if the applicants could make the deck smaller. Ms. Jansen indicated that the deck was as small as possible. Berquist asked what was the size of deck that was approved. Kirchoff responded that it was 14 feet in depth. Ms. Jansen stated that a lower patio was planned when the building permit for the deck and addition was approved in 1995. Berquist asked if the patio would have been approved. Kirchoff stated that it would not have been approved because it does not meet the setback. Mr. Jansen stated it is irrelevant. Berquist stated that he was determining if a patio must meet the bluff setback. He asked if the deck would have footings. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Jansen stated that the deck would have pier footings and it would be attached to the house. Watson asked if the lower was deemed a structure. Kirchoff stated that it is a structure. Ms. Jansen stated that they intend to protect the bluff and that the deck would change the situation. She stated that they will be installing vegetation that will prevent erosion. Berquist stated that he would like to approve the variance based upon the hardship that the city approval in 1995 created. Watson stated that the prior city approval did not create a commitment to this variance. Berquist stated that he was committed to approve the variance because it is similar in size to the original deck. Watson stated that she is committed to the lower deck,but she would like to see it smaller. Johnson asked if the deck could float. Kirchoff stated that it still would be a structure. Ms. Jansen stated that if deck is made wider and the depth is decreased, it still will not change the erosion of the bluff. Watson asked if something can be placed under the deck to improve the soil so that it can retain moisture. Berquist asked what the applicant was planning to do to prevent erosion. Ms. Jansen stated that they will improve the soil and plant shade tolerant plants to hold the soil. Berquist asked if they can place restrictions on installing erosion control plantings. Ms. Jansen stated that they plan to install landscape fabric and improve the soils. Watson asked if the applicant is committed to these activities. Ms. Jansen stated that they are committed to improving the soils. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 6 Berquist stated that the improved soil will protect and improve the bluff. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback requirement for the construction of a deck with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall improve the permeability of the soil under the lower deck. 2. Install Type II erosion control until vegetation has been fully restored on the site. 3. The applicant shall alter the vegetation in the bluff impact zone based upon the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' best management practices. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to close the public hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated May 12 , 1998. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TUESDAY, JUKE 30, 1998 AT 6:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Call to Order 1. A request for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an enclosed porch, 8372 Stone Creek Drive, Lot 24, Block 3, Creekside Addition, Kim Beauclair(applicant) and Chris&Craig Winter(owners). 2. A request for an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a deck, 240 Eastwood Court (Lot 8, Block 1, Lake Riley Woods), Linda & Bill Jansen. 3. Approval of Minutes. Adjournment 1 , CITY OF BOA DATE:6/30/98 \\�\I�J • CEMITASSENCCDATE: CASE#: 98-5 VAR By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A request for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an enclosed porch. LOCATION: Stone Creek Drive Z (Lot 24,Block 3, Creekside Addition) Q APPLICANT: Kim Beauclair Chris & Craig Winter V 3120 68th Street E. 8372 Stone Creek Drive Inver Grove Heights, MN Chanhassen, MN CL 455-3247 797-4901 a (Contractor) (Owner) T PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 20,000 sq. ft. DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N: RSF, Single Family Residential S: RSF, Single Family Residential E: RSF, Single Family Residential Q W: RR, Rural Residential I- Q. WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is a wooded lot near the westerly Bluff Creek I' exists A single family home with an attached garage exists on the site. �' 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential pa: iiiisqe *, I i * Lake r re 10&%I 0 i g 4,.1 ,--. ,1 ., Ann ,,, ,-;"-- :': wA 4. ,,..... re-tafwaWinliWa .......,\ ON„lirr 41 141010 I‘ 111111111lb -. 41 • „„.. Limas -- • 1111PRIVIC 14111 'lvd Park thiallill *---111 RIM PPEWIIIN 111111111100 1' -----------------_ ( Lake e1RA011110 " Park VI490 .-0 Park MI Eialk'4* fro,* m Cln Rd ,ip • 4,.. ,:k. t court L. . 4cowte Btvd. I II pti C 0 ulter Blvd : 110A1*V 6 LrIc iz,„ Iii bew••• Dr VARIANCE REQU . .. , ‘,...... s. , ihro,„.1. ,,,f3 ji,, , , _,.-1; 74 . 1. WM 111 1.1 f '.111FPO -, VIM III 1,„ rei gia iir fodrAdmi gyp-4 4 - NE ri ' sto,e C.re Jr •e__ ilia . • Ili ,. iMnAiimOrl " ' v./ a e itOrttlirr# /11111 MI iiiiiihke,4 soolP0 ut t //t 4k• 4/4/V' OP 3 0 is all IOW, AIIIIIIII 1 I k 1!Art it'ilt 161/AstR' Fo atIlac *kr 41.- V. s , 6 pit%**Or 00 • g, \c•' .40 . A joa slink to Nva:E1 c. . • wi,,,k,, 4 t .4 •43•.` ake D I` • AWAki> • Vilna 41e• - ql-- . • 0.4-1; •. ,te,0 NIA' ' iiiiierlirt17104 sts-jeul- merft faitiOx mi.. ll'Airl cts .004.0. i ' emirl mill V veAtii Lyman Bit,0,111.1,4Armlfrw gt `-'41111111 MINE RE ' V SW Tit greA'r'I ' COV r le r I er Meg X tillir 4251 4.1_,'--- *It. LI r, FlIsma Par • itik.41, ta 01'0 a 04, weese4 , i low' .43, ....,.. ,, 02.., 4t.4 1...Arif all 1 ) A 7 ual 1 a.wirrive :f ,,V \ c raistatiza* f3' 4)°Iri sill edi-Eal , Park 41111117 \ Vilsti - k .11 • 0N1 \ ,t •EL,- \ i �.- Beauclair Variance Juen 24, 1998 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-615 states that in single family residential districts the minimum rear yard setback is 30 feet. Section 20-908 states that decks may encroach 5 feet into a required rear yard setback. Section 20-908 states that stairs and necessary landings may encroach 6 feet into a rear yard setback provided that it does not extend above the entrance floor of the building. BACKGROUND Creekside Addition was platted in 1995. The extreme southern portion of this subdivision is substantially wooded. According to the subdivision conditions of approval, this lot was to be custom graded because of the physical features. The house maintains a 50 foot setback from Bluff Creek on the north. The existing home fits tightly on the lot. The applicant proposes to construct a 12 foot by 14 foot(168 sq. ft.) deck and a 12 foot by 14 �-- foot enclosed porch in the rear yard. The deck and accompanying landing meets all setbacks because of the position of the home on the lot. The enclosed porch encroaches into the setback 11 feet. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback for the construction of an enclosed porch. This proposed porch extends 11 feet into the rear yard setback. The setback line essentially slices the porch in half diagonally. The steps/landing for the deck extend 6 feet into the setback, however, the zoning ordinance permits this encroachment. Decks are permitted to encroach 5 feet into a rear yard setback. The deck maintains a 28 foot setback, so it complies with ordinance. However, the zoning ordinance does not permit the encroachment of enclosed porches because they have the potential to be utilized for living space. The applicant contends that without the closed porch the home owners have a hardship because the house was built for the deck and porch addition. Staff believes that the home owner created the hardship by selecting and building this home plan. The home just fits within the permissible building area of the lot. It is so large that it cannot be situated any other way without encroaching into a required setback. Ultimately, it is the owner's responsibility to review all zoning regulations prior to constructing a home. The owners chose the plan, therefore, they created the situation and the hardship. The application letter states that the living space will be underutilized if the variance is not approved. The proposed deck can still Beauclair Variance Juen 24, 1998 Page 3 be built. Therefore, the home owners can still have access to and utilize the rear yard without the porch. This proposal does not warrant the granting of a variance because a hardship is not present. A hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use"can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home. The owners have a reasonable use and they can construct a deck while maintaining the required setback. The inability to construct a enclosed porch does not constitute a hardship. If this variance is approved it will negatively affect an adjoining property. The layout of Creekside Addition is such that a vacant lot lies directly behind the subject property. That is, the subject property's rear yard adjoins the neighboring property's side yard(See Attachment 5). Therefore, the granting this variance will be injurious to another property. When a home is constructed on the neighboring property, the house plan will have to take into consideration the reduced setback that the subject property will be maintaining, if the variance is approved. The two homes will be placed a closer distance than would be normally found in this situation. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, therefore, staff does not recommend approval. 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 applicant has a reasonable use of the property. A single family home and attached garage exist on the property. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to construct a deck on the property without a variance. The shape or size of the lot does not prohibit a enclosed porch from being constructed, the house pad placement caused the constriction. All of the homes in this neighborhood maintain the required setbacks. This variance would depart downward from the existing standards. Beauclair Variance Juen 24, 1998 Page 4 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 this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. 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: The purpose of this request is to construct a closed porch. The outcome of this change will increase the value of the parcel. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created. This applicant has the opportunity to construct a deck that maintains the required setback. 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 variance will permit a structure to be located into a required setback potentially infringing on the adjoining future property owner's comfort. 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 variation will enable a structure to maintain a rear yard setback that is much less than what would be found in other properties in the RSF zoning district. The deck will most certainly affect the property to the west. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the request #98-5 for a 11 foot variance from the 30 rear yard setback for the construction of an enclosed porch based upon the findings presented in �_. the staff report and the following: Beauclair Variance --. Juen 24, 1998 Page 5 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a deck within the required setbacks." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks 3. Section 20-908, Yard Regulations 4. Lot Survey and Deck and Porch Elevations 5. Creekside Addition(Lots 24-26, Block 3) 6. Public hearing notice and property owners g:\plan\ck\boa\beauclair 98-5 var.doc —r, A it( tc h vn--r.iqc, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Cl;t:.mac .:.i (., OWNER: Ckr.i f ADDRESS: ze `ra- S C ADDRESS: g-3 1..2 Sk,"- cv D: h/4y/Z) Mj^ 4-.5e26 wih! 3,7 TELEPHONE(Day time) (CI-J (5 3.ti.-7 TELEPHONE: 6(t' ` 70 C! - L/`iC Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements r Interim Use Permit X 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 Esc - or Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** •CU P/SP RNACNAR/W AP/Metes . d Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$7 5.0() 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 8'/"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. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Scf.,.a , �2- t CK. Ctf1c',f o LOCATION 5. {? 4 .5 -,JY c:.zzc, • LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lcfi .2'1 et.L{( 3 Sir os w c. PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING -z� i, • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION '14' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ctEt!% t.�„`; i{':c4 �V/�•-� 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. 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. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on (Pill q Fee Paid 1111. 5'C° Receipt No. 30(:) • The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meetina. It not contacted. a cnnv of tha rannrt will ha rnflllnrt to Din einnlii.ont'c orirtroec Beauciairs �ofS ,U 3120 68`"St.E RECEIVED �/�/�wY{. `�n Inver Grove Heights,MN 55076 (Res.) 455-3247 (page)608-4823 and Cabinetry J U N 4 1998 CITY OF CH. .NHASSEN June 3, 1998 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Cynthia: I am a contractor and on behalf of my clients; Chris and Craig Winter of 8372 Stone Creek Dr., I am applying for a variance for the addition of a screened porch and a deck. Please have the city compile a list of property owners. I can be billed directly for the cost. Enclosed is application,tvwix copies of the plans,transparencies and plot plans. We are requesting a variance for 5.5 feet. The owners do not currently have a deck. Provisions were made at the time of building for the addition of a deck in the proposed location. Without a variance, a usable porch/deck can not be built. Without the addition of the porch/deck,the owners would incur an undue hardship, because the original design of the house included provisions for a deck/porch expansion. Without the addition part of the homes living space is under utilized and creates a problem for future owners. The property is heavily wooded and the addition would not block supply of light or air to adjacent property. Sincerely, Kim Beauclair President /CI V t `` l ,,lJ § 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)OCX 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 Whore Frontage le Measured At Setback Line rf'-�•• �• - %.:11q,0\0 I 0: • L t.,;• crc �• �� • . • • •• • (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 Fron Lot Ling i 1 • 1 . I I I I 100' Lot Width 1 I 1 MID J 1 1 e l LW SUM 1 1 1 1 I. - 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. 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 �t1z:\c V14.) iC 11"1 t 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 measurements 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 provisions 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 (variances granted from a required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments): 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 d ecks 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 interior 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 permitted 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. 10 1233 /--A-1-tc-keYivyi-cvitk) ... 1 " w_a ,. 4.=FZTIFICF4TS OP SUFevm ci fir:4? ,.... FOR: CLAUSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. I r, q \ \ \ —_ _ _ __ 739 z.� - 90, FORTH :. q� 24,— \ _ •99 — x9o8.1 906 of o a :.• .: iiji t f?I . 0 • ____("1-,1 / ' ‘' / . 9 `=---,7' Pie 8'i.0 \/ �14.9. - 012.0, " , 4i8. 4 .I I o° v V 12"6ak " 'k :4�1,��- v9i2B 9 / . 6 ` ' o ' i :w ( Qj9, ' k.\w fr.,' i t919.i 1„oak(1,-„..--ir cI o • la'oak �i / r If/ 1- ktia, c721%1 0 ''/7 .„;.--. \,,-L.5 • (----lcitvE- 4 --- . ‘ eV .le _ _ . (1-2/...f--) '-4,-) )('-1(--/..--. A% A.u., % 32,,eik iti ,_.e„ :... ._ .. ‘ . ,o, ,-,-, , .,..„ 7 ,,,,..) „.i,„„3-- •!..1 4,47 _ ., . ., \ — , dk Itt:,' 237 C'0 „ 7 7' — 2 . ._ . _ ... .: �\ +921 'i13'6 g1.58/ �Z y qt9° , U 4' Sk. 2\-0 '4 71.5 / _,. _., . . . 1/4, 7 1 poi •� ,�� 9 G• ' =; 6-•• •.,pite."--.% /7(12, dge o;-Ind s - -- - •4 V E y - ' DIAG: 94$X GG = 115,27 E 18.o o wq`l�l vi D&NOTES R2o►�oifiD Co,.nouR. • . Jrt°' lc / 3 ' PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: -7 OM& DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. / r GARAGE FLOOR = 923:1_`a x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. ol TOP OF BLOCK = e725.6 LOWEST FLOOR = 31G.¢ ��;c: «;.:1 DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. 23 DENOTES WOOD HUB AT 11 FOOT OFFSET. -- — O.NOTe: EkttSTio-ic.: c.ouibv"c. . ",vrsr.,/ ,rofic,,,/ Lot 24, Block 3, CREEKSIDE ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota. `o„i,,,rs . .57e,,. i,"/-; ' -le 1"= 30' 10 Denotes Iron Mon. Bearing Datum: Assumed Job No. 96675HS 1Drwg By BAO j Disk 73 xie hereby certify that this is a true and correct repr e'tati of "\, E. G. RUC 4 SONS, INC a survey of the boundaries of the above descii ed la d ari t • 1 L4,^, SuRvEYORS location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and, II CvCs r slam LEXINGTON AVE. NO. ;f any, from or on said land. E. U CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA ,' �1 By. - -5014-3625 TEL. 786-555g0 n rd.c-1 +h;.. /r`J� ,-4,,,,,-4,,,, ,.Fri1////'rn..I,r-Y^innc IA: a,. I : �i r '�"�r sc - '/ _ I � SITE PLAN Ica feet Grp ��L� , A.L U •\ i` } tOfee1- Sin. + > 4et°+ lP II). in I cc fe-er ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ( ( !� PORCH AND DECK ELEVATION • • iI i l l i ji 1 1 I— u , Scik % 4 I _ o V V b \ t*•'1 `,S14,j9 10-E 1` • ' 16 u3'0•' 'A 0U 0-VU I I G 68 — � sr32'w` \ ,J , \ ` ; ` 15.74r / . \\-S75,3333.27455"E \- 7 � 4 3 II I J ,�J � e ,,S ` ,6.38 . 37 ` - �� , .. -•SIJ ,a111111111111ftl. .° \ /r; \ 1rl I / •3 / 9202 J,7E• 102.0W ,- 'sonny* 821 `1 `_ 5'9"E \ 3 f '-! / 1y0o1 h1' 41,81 ' s 06�8 g0W 131.06 `j c \H , h / .... .3` '.502b9 45.2114 E' a52171.169 •- S0206'35"W 95.41 -- '1I o f' .) 1- ..' 'N \54'28' � / P / 1877 / \ i. 28' .J 2 �L-543.67 L-72 7- 30 / i: \ t. . J \ S TONE a05.22.09• \``,.,L.35.61 / � "> -4 2U, R.320.00 C.28 •- • < OUTLOT F ��� 4, !C° C' \ —1 ,- 200 3 •, 0. ' \ F 1 ' arr '- I� a s.00 , „ •`J !2 5 e '383 \ V N15 (\\ G a tj �•r3f \ /- 7 NI I£ 23 '` •3�� �" �• / 1 / ^� Q J 54 6218 J0� 135.E 4' / \,*J•P \ \ y /-�ORAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENT''�'- —' 'A_, \/ \ — 5 0,2732-W 196.31 --'p,� / (/ OUTLOT D N o �.—�'' `��s� �-�' /` - 7 ��Q / y / 24 'moo i ` A J., L / . �> ^� / ° /�, '*off ) W E 4 �s /<./ 5 h. / ' • so /L7 \S / '°21 p�g 80 24\�•W .�� // //b \ "Is O L— ' o .';L-465.67 066'5.49 .../ / ��'a �� \\QJ,• / / 23 / / �..� 2p / . ` ; /i \ / \// 4 41. 4 6y / \ �/ // 3 \ C/ `�' / , DRAINAGE AND <„ \ /> ,�O tp.6 (K_ 26 '1 ' , A- 13'44'24' UTILITY EASEMENT` ,o, 54119'31'WR- 245.00 �. / J0 / 25I .8) ,b ,. - 20.00 : L-58.75 '•. .� �- J '-�, c9,' ';CENTER UNE OF 75 FOOT ELECTRIC TRANSMISSON UNE', �• {, , ' b0,' • I EASEMENT PER BOOK 57 OF DEEDS,PAGE 269 AND • ,_1{ P J. p-06 55'49-',' �'' 'AMENDED PER BOOK 18 GF SATISFACTIONS,PAGE 243• ` (�. 9''1 9'I' o �t. : R-405.67 - • b�' , 207.34 6 ea 338.48 $ 259.73 L-49.07 ----; •, .78.70 -- - �,,,- ,� 1252.29 54119'31•W 20.00 a N 00°59'45" W 2735.48 bo W.UNE. SW 1/4. SE 1/4.SEC. 15 CREEKSIDE ADDITION_ \ r\ r-^m A mr—^ (1 J V L_ I /—\ I L_ I r-(--\ I I L)T I 1 \ A r-1 r1 I I . N I ) ) ) ) ) ) - be oo. Dr �®W NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 04111111111‘.06 aillt _, 017,F ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS ow ARD OF illive`. eml Tuesday, June 30, 1998 rillkoa 1,ii,,,,at 6:00 p.m. �'�I.' R;dgyCity Hall Council Chambers ill1 � mi 690 City Center Drive ir+�`i. ©�� NI ra 611.4 .50111 AI . re NMI Mimi, VIIIIIIIPA/ Iry r, sonp go ake PROJECT: ::::r:::t: 1at oss • • gia r V /,,' ���► LOCATION: 8372 Stone Creek Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Craig and Chris Winter, is requesting an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a closed porch located at 8372 Stone Creek Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Board of Adjustments Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Board discusses project. The Board will then make a decision. 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 18, 1998. _ Lc c D,. /i OSMONICS, INC. DAN CHUMBLER CRAIG &CHRISTINE WINTER 5951 CLEARWATER DRIVE 2001 STONE CREEK DRIVE 8372 STONE CREEK DRIVE MINNETONKA, MN 55343 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT INC BOB&CINDY EGELSTON MCKNIGHT&ASSOCIATES 450 COUNTY ROAD D EAST 2018 STONE CREEK DRIVE 14093 COMMERCE AVE NE LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 HOMER F. SUTTER MARVIN &CAROLE LUECK 1913 CREEKVIEW COURT 2019 STONE CREEK DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL&LAURA WOELFEL JOHN SWINGTONE CREEK DRIVE 1924 CREEKVIEW COURT 2034 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE& KANDREA JELLE JAMES D.OLSON 1927 CREEKVIEW COURT 2050 STONE CREEK DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS BARR CONLIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1944 CREEKVIEW COURT 11840 ISLETON AVENUE NO CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GRANT, MN 55082 STEVEN & DARLA YERKES HAROLD E. SCHRUM 2030 RENAISSANCE COURT 8297 STONE CREEK DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 AGHA TAHIR M KHAN JERRY CORNELL 2040 RENAISSANCE COURT 8345 STONE CREEK DRIVE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT LAWSON HESTIA HOMES INC 2041 RENAISSANCE COURT 4885 CO RD 6 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359 STEPHEN PETERS DOUG PETERSON - 2000 STONE CREEK DRIVE 8369 STONE CREEK DRIVE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF :::6/30198 NNA S SEN CASE #: 98-4 VAR By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A request for an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a deck. LOCATION: 240 Eastwood Court Q (Lot 8, Block 1,Lake Riley Woods) 0 APPLICANT: Linda&Bill Jansen 240 Eastwood Court CL Chanhassen, MN 55317 a 496-3938 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 2.4 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N: RD,Recreational Development Lake S: RR,Rural Residential E: RR,Rural Residential W: RR,Rural Residential WATER AND SEWER: Unavailable to the site- Outside MUSA PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is a riparian lot on Lake Riley. A single family 111 home with an attached garage exists on the site. The northern portion of the lot contains a bluff and is heavily wooded. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential,Large Lot 4 _---/ 9000 400* Pt, 9100 ......,sy :- ,1 le , \ .. ffobt 1 74 9200 or .....„__,..... Bandimere b4941#1, rtIIIIIç › Ai, IANCE REQUEST 48 9300 Community 1 4 › m Bandimere Rte y 4, 0 Heights c 0 m Park AI Park Z 't 9400 ._ CD Of) \ E co 0 0 I 9500 4 i ._.•1011 1 •• . Plii r11.4111F . Oth • • ::::: .urt lk • qp,. 9600 r M 9700 — 'nevie Milo 01 ---, 9800 10 illt $ eli6.1.4.1)1114: f : */ Aililii ql 9900 .; . 0, • 1-1, ,r,e 0%_111.11111111A4 . * N 10000 i. ilit 4- ..• MI ... . 0 E t u •c?' . 10100 : . lor aim =dm - -- ._„.: „ „.„,..... „ c• i 10200 10300 ,ii ) r ---- . . L,ne 1 10400 ----, -.- 7 go SNe 0_06‘14 vivtly7 10500 1A2 k35 Jansen Variance June 24, 1998 `-- Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-1401 states that structures shall maintain a minimum of a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. However, if the home was constructed prior to June 1, 1991, any addition shall maintain a 5 foot setback or the existing setback,which ever is greater. (In this case, the setback will be 30 feet because that is the house setback.) Section 20-1 defines the bluff impact zone as "a bluff and land located within twenty (20)feet from the top of the bluff. " BACKGROUND In 1995, the applicant applied for a building permit for a living space addition and a new deck. In order to construct the 11 foot living space addition, the original deck was removed from the home and the proposed deck was shifted closer to Lake Riley. The addition was constructed, but the deck was never built. The deck was removed from the building permit application because the applicant desired a different design. According to the City's building permit, the proposed deck was 302 sq. ft(see Attachment 4). Staff incorrectly approved the building permit for the deck because topography was not shown on the survey. The applicant should have had to receive a variance to build the deck because it did not meet the 30 foot bluff setback. Although it was not indicated on the 1995 building permit, the applicant stated that the proposal included a brick patio and fire pit near the bluff. Staff would have not supported a variance for this plan because of the excessive amount of hard surface. The applicant contends that the size of the original deck is important to the current request. Staff believes that the size and style of the 1995 deck is irrelevant to this application because the building permit has expired (Section 20-91 states that a building permit expires in 90 days if the work has not begun). The current application is a request to construct a 575 sq. ft., two-level deck in the bluff setback. In 1991, the 30 foot bluff setback was approved in the southern portion of the City. This setback intended to protect unique and sensitive topography from further erosion near the Minnesota River Valley and Bluff Creek area. The 30 foot setback and 20 foot bluff impact zone were developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The subject property was not included in this original ordinance. However, seeing that bluffs and environmentally sensitive areas were being destroyed or degraded by grading, filling or development in other parts of the community, the city adopted the 30 foot bluff setback city-wide in 1994. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a 575 sq. ft. deck. The existing house is 30 feet from the top of the bluff on the west and 32 feet on the east. The bluff protection ordinance requires that all structures maintain Jansen Variance June 24, 1998 Page 3 a minimum setback of 30 feet from the top of the bluff. The proposed deck extends 20.5 feet from the house at its deepest point and 6 feet at its smallest. The proposed deck addition is two levels. The western most deck(223 sq. ft.) is over 9 feet above grade and the lower level on the east(354sq. ft.) is 1 foot above grade. Both levels have an access to and from the home. The decks are linked via a spiral staircase. The applicant contends that two levels are needed to make the most of the sunshine and the lake. The west deck was primarily designed to allow light to pass through into the lowest level of the house. The lower level or the east deck was designed for outdoor gatherings. The applicant contends that the bluff setback is creating a hardship because outdoor living space cannot be constructed without a variance. When the applicant constructed the 11 foot addition on the lake side of the home, they shifted the area for the deck into the bluff setback. This addition created the application and the hardship. The applicant indicated that they were not aware of any setbacks or restrictions on building near a bluff so they proceeded with the addition in 1995. Staff believes that it is the owner's responsibility to be aware of any regulations that may affect the development of their property. The hardship was self-created and staff does not support the variance. The regulations that a municipality imposes on private property intends to protect the investment -. as well as the health, safety and welfare of the community. Without the bluff setback, homes would continue to be built on the top of the bluff, thus causing increased erosion and the possibility of damage to the home and the natural features of Chanhassen. Bluff Setback The bluff setback was developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to protect bluffs from the negative impacts of development. According to the DNR, "the 30 foot structure setback from the bluff top provides a minimum distance between the bluff top and the planned or proposed foundation, walls or eaves of a structure for the maneuvering of building materials during construction." They also define the bluff impact zone as the 20 feet from the top of the bluff. This area should be preserved to maintain the natural appearance of the bluff and prevent soil erosion (see Attachment 5). Staff believes that the bluff setback and impact zone should be clear of structures. The proposed deck encroaches into the 20 foot impact zone 8.5 feet. The applicant's proposal is excessive. Most building permits for decks are less than 200 sq. ft. in area. The deck's design does not take the bluff into consideration. Jansen Variance June 24, 1998 �-- Page 4 DNR Recommendation The shoreland management ordinance requires that the City notify the DNR of any requested variances that deviate from the set standards from shorelands. Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist, verbally recommended denial of the variance because she believes that the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Staff supports the DNR and its recommendation. Neighbor Comments Staff was contacted by a neighbor concerning the variance from the bluff setback. They stated that they were required to maintain the 30 foot bluff setback when their home was constructed, so the applicant should too. They also stated that the lot is over 400 feet in depth and that an alternative location should be selected for the deck. If the variance is granted, they believe that a new bluff setback will be established in this neighborhood. Staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship to support the variance. The inability to construct a deck is not a hardship. Furthermore, a reasonable use exists on this property. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the 18.5 foot variance for the construction of the deck. 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: A single family home and attached garage exist on the property so the applicant has a reasonable use of the property. The property is large enough where outdoor living space could be constructed in another location without a variance. The inability to construct a deck does not constitute a hardship. Approving this variance would depart downward from the existing neighborhood standards. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Jansen Variance June 24, 1998 Page 5 Finding: The conditions are applicable to many of the riparian lots in the city and those lots in the extreme southern portion of the city. The bluff setback was adopted city-wide because of the sensitive topography that exists throughout Chanhassen. 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: The purpose of this request is to construct a large deck. This will certainly increase the value of the home. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created. The applicants constructed an addition that shifted the proposed deck closer to the bluff setback,thus creating the current application. 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 18.5 foot variance will permit a structure to be located in a bluff setback and impact zone. The encroachment into the impact zone could negatively affect the bluff and Lake Riley. 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 variation will enable a structure to maintain a lesser bluff setback than would be found in other properties in the RSF and RR zoning districts. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the request # 98-4 for an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 side yard setback based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant created the hardship." -� Jansen Variance June 24, 1998 �-- Page 6 Should the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve the request. The following conditions shall apply: 1. The applicant shall not alter vegetation in the bluff impact zone. 2. Type II erosion control shall be maintained until vegetation has been restored. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-1400, Bluff Protection 3. Lot Survey and Deck Elevations 4. 1995 Deck Plan 5. DNR Bluff Setback Information 6. Public hearing notice and property owners g:\plan\ck\boa\jansen 98-4 var.doc A t-tcv_11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN REC'IVED 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAY 29 1998 (612) 937-1900 CH/ilVfin n r f UtPT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION I (� APPL1CANT:41.it ' OWNER: (&3s-e-e) ADDRESS: ZA{O1�Cz�c1 C�r ADDRESS: i6h iI-, ssS- C-1, to 1,1 5531"? TELEPHONE(Day time) iligee, — 3 I3R 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 I _ 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 $ -75'6O A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. t be su trartsparerrcylaris eet. " 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. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. - PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION $ �jIQC�j ��� Z lam/ • W cS • PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION..nn REASON FOR THIS REQUEST &c't 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. 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. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. ./z611gS Signature of App " -. Date Signature of Fee Owner qq� r� Date Application Received on 5/ i i 1 s Fee Paid '1' / 5''°° Receipt No. 2 '7 3 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. VARIANCE REQUEST JANSEN/240 EASTWOOD CT. Description of the variance requested. We are requesting the following setback variance to the required bluff setback of 30 feet for a wooden deck and patio structure: -Lower level structure 20'6": 18'variance for a set back of 11'6". -Upper level structure 16' : 16'variance for a set back of 14'. Justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance. The original house was built in 1987,we purchased it in July of 1994. In 1995 we applied for a permit to construct an addition and deck on the north side of the existing structure. (copy of plans attached) When the building application was submitted using the plans dated 6/5/95 the builder was informed that the deck stairway encroached upon the well setback requirement. He then showed us a revised deck plan and resubmitted the application which was approved on 6/20/95. We proceeded with the construction of the addition which includes an extensive wall of windows with a double sliding door to access the deck on the second level and two doors on the lower level to access a patio. Upon demolition of the existing deck we began considering other deck design alternatives. Our goal was to provide the maximum view from inside the house,with as minimal a shading to the lower level living area as possible,with enough area to accommodate our existing outdoor furniture,without having the view up from the lake be entirely of the bottom of the deck. The builder of the addition was unable to design an acceptable structure. So we proceeded with completion of the addition with the knowledge that we would be adding a deck at a later date once acceptable plans could be designed. Due to the original ---� approval of the deck location we now have a structure that is deck-ready,with an ordinance now restricting its completion and full use of the accesses clearly shown in the construction plans. The Archadeck plan we are submitting meets all of our goals with the addition of some interesting materials to make it less obstructive for viewing from the house or from the lake. The upper level accommodates limited seating for home owner enjoyment,with the lower level dimensions to accommodate small groups for barbecuing, dining and entertaining. The spiral staircase provides compact access between the two structures,with the patio extending towards the stairway down to the lakeshore. Findings for granting a variance: "Undue hardship"because the property cannot be put to reasonable use with the position of the deck access doors to the position of the bluff. Door and deck positioning which had prior city approval. "Reasonable use" includes a use made by all of the comparable properties within five hundred feet. Lakeshore homes are usually constructed with outdoor entertainment areas,which is true of our adjacent properties. Additionally, due to this being a northern exposure,the ground tends to hold a great deal of moisture for an extended period of time, making it impossible to use without some type of raised surface. We will be finishing the area around the deck with shade and moisture tolerant plantings. This will be a"sustainable" landscape plan to eliminate any need for chemicals or supplemental watering to reduce the amount of runoff and increase erosion control. Consistent with the landscaping we have completed to date on other areas of the property. TO: THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN Tv'OW-C1-4ir1U!HiVzSEN FROM: LINDA AND BILL JANSEN �n 240 EASTWOOD CT. MAY 2 9 1998 DATE: MAY 29, 1998 t11,0J LiCrT SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE One of our reasons for moving to Chanhassen was an appreciation for the natural resources that exist in this community. We not only fully understand and appreciate the city's position on protecting the natural resources of this community,we are active participants in the preservation of the environment. Hence we find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma with our deck construction and this variance request. We have evaluated our project and the concerns of the Bluff Ordinance and have found what we think is a compatible means of achieving both end goals: Our desired end goal of an outdoor entertainment area to actively enjoy our location on one of this city's nicest natural resources(Lake Riley)without causing harm to the area or jeopardizing the enjoyment of it by the rest of the community. Ideally, had we been made aware of the bluff set-back ordinance at the time of our remodel in 1995, we would have been able to work with our contractor to meet our requirements and the city's requirements through different design plans,as per changes we made to comply with all of the ordinances that we encountered with our construction plans. We are now in a position of being unable to use our property as it was intended without requesting a variance to the bluff setback. Realizing what needs to be accomplished: Bluff Protection (Article XXV111.)Statement of intent.(Sec. 20-1400) Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluff impact zone may result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city. To preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the city, alteration to land or vegetation within the bluff area will not be permitted except as regulated by this article and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the property is located. We have selected a design and materials that achieve the above goals: -This construction will not result in any excavation,other then for pier footings. By using a raised patio we eliminate excavation and fill that would be necessary for a paver or other ground structure. -There will be no loss of trees or existing vegetation. -Plantings will be added to prevent erosion and a sustainable landscaping plan will eliminate any use of chemicals or supplemental watering that would otherwise have been necessary. -Visibility to surrounding properties is non-existent and visibility from the lake is reduced by using glass railings and limiting the size of the upper structure. We have maintained the natural vegetation on the Bluff to the extent that the house is barely visible through the trees from the lake. No trees have been removed and pruning has been kept to a minimum. -Additionally,we have sought guidance and recommendations from Philip Elkin to plan"lakescaping" plantings to further enhance the natural features of our lakeshore and reduce the amount of erosion being produced by waves on the shore line. We are actively working with our lake association to bring the same land management values to the other lake shore owners,broadening the influence we can provide to the community to preserve our natural resources. We welcome any site visits that would be beneficial to your decision making process. Thank you for taking the time to consider our request,we look forward to speaking with each of you prior to or during the July 1st meeting.