Loading...
7. Appeal Decision for Variance Rqst, 361 Deerfoot Trail CITY OF CHANHASSER 7 BOA DATE: 5/20/97 - CC DATE: 6/9/97 CASE #: 97-3 By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A request for a 1.6 foot variance for the construction of a deck. - LOCATION: 361 Deerfoot Trail (Lot 8, Block I, Sunny Slope Addition) ~ f ) j APPLICANT: Scott Wirth 361 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 . - ( PRESENT ZONING: PUD R, Planned Unit Development Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 12,000 sq. ft. (.29 Acres) DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: RSF, Residential Single Family A-2, Agricultural Estate District c . r 1 J WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains an existing single-family residence and a drainage easement. . I. , 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential -, samti ,..re : I. .!J! Hel.glu:s IiC. ( Park ~ ;;:;:!'!~';Y", ~~1 :::.i ,:~'.t.~.': ii . .':':"j~i~ ~ ~ Lake ~ .... ~ :J~;J,[ I-!- ~ ?: I \~ l~ i~ \ Riley t~ -.., '.. \) "'?7 '- / __() -POSED VARIANCE~~ i ~ ~ J 0 I -T ~~ ~~ l"--.",-- ~ T _. ^~~ \ ~- ! j' J uo;;~-, _'" ::-- ",W ~ 1-1- ~ I- ~ ~. I r-~\\ I /~..~ ,~ \ -;~,~P7t ~', >; E,',,;' ~:~lJ~~~tb 84]D T~" . c'J:\~ .,. .' . :t.. .. . 'j.. ,. ,,'itJ',; /'. ~ ; ::';' , .' '" ,~.::'Cf.,;~. :.,' ~:~'-1 f i -: i ~ ~ ";-:OF ,ii,:;" "", ;i:,,);c2:~'ii: ~, ~ . V / .~ .' ..,<<; :\ 'J"', ,,:(-'''..: V J .","~.':' '~,'(' '.,," ,- ;""'S. (~:;:" "'y,:'; . , "'iliU~.:':.'t'',;i'L''0;i; 7 ~ ~ ----. ~ ^!:f . .. ""creek,:::.:" ,':2i",;'c': ~ ~l ,..~ ~"",,.;o,,,,,,,,:~,~,,,,::.ft..._'I.i.:.:'.. .~. '.o", '", ...CL_~ ., ,~." ~":'~i'WR4'~~" ... ..., , ... ,~~""J..."I;;'o.;:$"::}..r;"l"'~'~~'m4"?r.i~~.!'l'i'?'!~"".::'"~\1I!~ ...~~.::':--!.,y~~.~:"Il;.....Y....~";,{..w....,..~ ~"~*~'l~ .~~~"'~~'M'W:..':i.t.":.;:!'$~~":");~"'~r/-Y.u 'v tl.' \:>"', .~.".. -- !1 I ~~ I?,. I.........~" .:: .....,.. \'. ~ L j ~ ,~ t.~ ~ i': . ~~ - ~ - ----"'", _~,ItJ-i ,V:~ ~~'~~~~~_ ) \ s """'~':i~uov:I'Y;if ) ~ ~ --;t~:, ~;.;tl~~~1~:~.~~~~.?'CiJ~~?';"\'::; ~ ~ (r0 0,.' " ".,' . ..... ':;+:i,(",i:~;;~iL~' ~ ~ ,j- --N ~_+~ - - Tn ~:ice .~ ~ , / , , I , , I , , I I I q ~ i fA -<-ry /...... ~ 6' ~ I I -0;;;.;,-;....1- -- ~ "" , Wirth 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 and the rear property lines (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 The applicant is requesting a 1.6 foot variance to construct a deck on the rear of an existing home. City Code permits a deck to project 5 feet into a required yard. This property has double street frontage. The residence is setback 20 feet from Deerfoot Trail and 33 feet from Lake Riley Boulevard. The lot is located in a planned unit development which permitted a 20 foot front yard setback along Deerfoot Trail, but required a 30 foot setback along Lake Riley Boulevard. The lot is approximately 110 feet in depth and 115 feet in width. Sunny Slope Addition was developed in the late 1970s and early 80s. The developer granted a large drainage easement on the subject property to comply with Watershed District requirements for runoff sedimentation. In 1989, the City constructed a pond in this easement as part of a maintenance project on Lake Riley because it was not constructed as part of the subdivision development. During that same year, the applicant constructed the residence that exists on the property. ANALYSIS The applicant believes that without the additional 60 + sq. ft. the deck will be useless. The site plan shows that the deck wraps around the rear of the home to the eastern side. (Note: The deck will not cause the removal of the tree in the rear yard). There are two sets of stairs which provide access to the deck. The proposed deck will be approximately 580 sq. ft. with the variance, and will still be over 500 sq. ft. without the variance. According to the applicant, the smaller deck will cause an undue hardship. An undue hardship means that property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. The real issue is that the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a deck while meeting the setback requirements. Staff believes that the smaller deck will be just as functional as the proposal and will allow the applicant complete use and enjoyment of the property. The inability to construct a 580 sq. ft deck is not a hardship. Wirth Variance May 20, 1997 Page 3 Staff surveyed the remaining 11 properties in this subdivision and found that all decks meet current setback requirements. The applicant contends that several of the properties along Lake Riley have received variances. This is true, however, this request cannot be compared to those properties located on Lake Riley as that development predates the zoning ordinance. This request should only be compared to the properties within this subdivision. The drainage easement is not the origin of the hardship. The home plan and size of the lot make it difficult to locate a deck in the rear yard. Even though the residence is located 20 feet from Deerfoot Trail, it is only 33 feet from the property line which abuts Lake Riley Boulevard. The style of home, with the protruding garage, makes it difficult to have ample room for a deck on the rear of the home, even without the easement. However, the applicant does have an opportunity to construct a large deck in the eastern portion of the property. The applicant has stated that the easement is constricting the stairs on the western side. The applicant is not required to have stairs at that location because this is not the main entrance to the home. Although this request is small in terms of measurement, staff believes that the applicant can make a reasonable use of the property without a variance. This property was developed for a single-family home. The subject property does have a single family home with a double garage. It is not a hardship if the property does not have a deck. The applicant believes that the deck will be unusable without the additional 1.6 feet, meanwhile staff believes that the deduction of 60 + sq. ft. will not prohibit the applicant from enjoying the deck. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS UPDATE The Board reviewed this application at the May 20, 1997 meeting. The application was unanimously denied by the Board. The members failed to find a hardship and believed that the applicant can redesign the deck to accommodate the stairs without the variance. At the meeting, staff stated that the southern set of stairs is causing the need for a variance. The applicant is proposing to construct two sets of stairs, one of which is located within the buildable area. If the applicant needs access to the yard from the deck, then one set of stairs should suffice. Staff would like to bring to the Council's attention that we have received a second variance within the same subdivision as the subject property. Approving this application will create new standards for this subdivision and set the stage for the proliferation of variances within a neighborhood that currently meets all ordinance requirements. One issue that was raised at the meeting, that does not pertain to this variance, was in regard to the catch basin which is located in the drainage easement. The applicant stated that this is a potential hazard for small children. Councilmember Berquist directed staff to investigate the safety of the catch basin. The engineering department was made aware of the applicant's concern and is Wirth Variance May 20, 1997 Page 4 replacing the grate in mid-June with one of low capacity. This will still allow water to pass through, yet will offer more protection against accidents. Staff is not aware of any accidents or problems with the existing catch basin. 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 easement does not create a hardship nor does a hardship exist. The applicant was aware of the easement prior to construction of this home. If a hardship truly exists, then the home would have not been built. The style of the home, that the applicant is responsible for, leaves little room for a deck on the rear of the home. The applicant does have a reasonable opportunity to construct and enjoy a deck. Many of the homes in this subdivision have decks and they all meet ordinance requirements. The size of the lot does not meet the requirements of the ordinance, but this property was developed as a planned unit development The PUD allowed 20 foot setbacks along Deerfoot Trail on all 12 lots. This was may ha';e been permitted to protect the rear of the residence from Lake Riley Boulevard because the lots are non-conforming in depth. Approving the variance would defeat the purpose of the reduced front yard setback. Additionally, if the setback had not been reduced this home would probably have not been built on this site. Approving this variance request will depart from pre-existing standards in this neighborhood as all of the homes in this subdivision meet ordinance requirements. 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. Wirth Variance May 20, 1997 Page 5 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. However, the applicant did state in the attached letter that this variance would improve the property value of this home as well those in the surrounding area. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Staff believes the hardship is self-created. The applicant knew prior to constructing the home that a drainage easement was located on the property. The applicant was also aware of the size of the lot and is responsible for the style of the home and its location. 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 the setback that abuts a public street. Staff is concerned with the distance the deck will be from Lake Riley Boulevard. 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 City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the request for a 1.6 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 vanance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct and enjoy a deck." Wirth Variance May 20, 1997 Page 6 A TT ACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-615, Lot requirements and setbacks 3. Section 20-908, Yard regulations 4. Site Plan 5. Deck Elevation 6. Property Owners 7. Appeal Letter 8. Minutes from the May 20, 1997 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting CLtlucJl yyf-nC CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION U""CfY"VOF CHAiiHA.$~~N Pi="'!:'!' 'r=1) APlP:R8J.19~997 \"r..C~t-th~"""\-\,, I ~""'I'''\oi uc.~l APPUCANT: ADDRESS: C' ..> r ~j -rr k' j r- -t- h... 3 (. , Dc-"e r-h:-o -r 7~) J'L. , OWNER: Sr" err- tJ I r -t-l- ADDRESS: '3" I 0 all r .+.z. (} -r- -t r&i;. d__ r kn-fl\t..c" <,C;"'V\., f1 N (' ,^^I.II t..li <;. r t"'- TElEPHONE (Day time) y s- l.f - 7 S- (, Y TELEPHONE: 'IllS" -7 If' If _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements - Jnterim Use Permit ./ Variance _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit _ PJanned Unit Development- _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign - Site Plan Review. ..lL Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost- ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNJAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) - Subdivision. TOTALFEE$ 76,QU 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 8112" 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. ;:)ROJECT NAME [)l'1_ k:. .OCATlON 3" ( D~-4' ..J-" D r Tr ~ ,~ C k et k A A. so r a-l'\ . 1'1,v 5" 5"3/7 EGAl DESCRIPTION II'J-j- K' ; ~/Dt: k .1 5 v hl'li7 SJ IJ /)~ A-d rI,' -fu. ~ I ( C<.r-IJ-L.Y r ('It) V\. -+;J- . . f1;J .OTAlACREAGE VETlANDS PRESENT YES NO )RESENT ZONING U=QUESTED ZONING 'RESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION :EQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION :EASON FOR THIS REQUEST IV -R RcJ.~ cL ~ livt~ ke. tt', () )~,~ r --t ,- (' c/ I I C) f- f,.,. ~ II t.J~ Cj 'fi,c- f.u, d I(*~r'" , his application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information nd plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning ;epartrnent to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. "',,1"<-4. I V\ detennination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written 'lice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. his is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with I City requirements with regard to this request This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom Ie City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership lither copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person , make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. win keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further 1derstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any Jthorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of y knowledge. 1e city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing quirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day ctension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review :tensions are approved by the applicant ~;""-::= 9 re of Applicant A . J~ '1/;1/'7 Date Date Receipt No. 31/ ~nature of Fee Owner 'plication Received on 411 ~ Jq 1 Fee Paid ~ 70, co e appncant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Scott A. Wirth 361 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen. MN 55317 April 18, 1997 City of Chanhassen The Board of Adjustments and Appeals 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Dear Board of Adjustments and Appeals: I am requesting a variance for a property line set-back of23'.36" instead of the normal 25' for the construction of an unenclosed deck. 1. The literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause hardship and practical difficulty because without the additional space the deck would resemble more of a hallway, instead of a workable deck. This space would be limited strictly to walking. It would be impossible to have a simple table and chairs in this area. The value of the deck, and thus, the home would be reduced. The value difference between 8' and 10' in decking area is immense. 2. Special conditions are present on this property. A storm-sewer draining easement exist immediately to the west of the property which requires building stairs beginning 8' in from the south-west comer of the deck., down to a platform and then north to a porch area. The standard width of the stairs is 42" , thus less than 5 ' deck width would be present in this area. The backdoor to the house is located in this area. Building the stairs in this fashion is needed to remain out of the easement area which is my property, but controlled by the City of Chanhassen. Please see the attached drawings and the pictures of the easement. 3. The additional square footage of the deck that this variance would provide would help the property value of this home as well as the value of all the homes in the area, which is needed because of the unsightly easement area. (Again, please observe the enclosed pictures.) In addition, no existing trees or shrubbery will need to be removed and the deck will be constructed of beautiful cedar wood. 4. When the lot was purchased in 1989, it did not look anything like it does now. It was a flat nice looking lot. After the lot was purchased, the easement was carved out, a catch-basin and other fixtures were installed. The easement area was on the plot, but I had no idea what was to be done with the area. I have worked extensively with the city and Dave Hempel in attempting to keep the area looking as good as possible. I initially seeded the area, and after flooding, the city laid sod there. I also built a small deck over the catch basin for esthetics and also safety. Small children could easily fall into the catch-basin. I have spent much effort and money over the years to maintain an area that I have no access to, which is 1/3 of my property. Without the easement, the house could have been laid-out in a manner that would have provided more room at the back of the house for decking. 5. The variance will not affect the welfare of the nearby residents in anyway. Many of the homes in the area already are much closer to the road behind my house than what is intended for the deck. The front side of homes directly across the street are less than 20 feet from the street. I am asking for an unenclosed deck to be 331/2 feet. Thank: you for your time in this matter. If you have any questions I can be reached at 445-7811, or 854- 7568. s~ --::. lJ~ ~ Sincerely, Scott Wirth Enclosure. U-J=iac.Yl vrn:.r-u= .A ZONING i 20-613 See. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, f 3, 2-12-90) Editor's Dote-Inasmuch as there exists a i 20-595, the provisions added by i 3 of Ord. No. 120 as f 20-595 have been redesignated as i 20-596. Sees. 20-597-20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE m. ''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: i 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 m9del home. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, i 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86) See. 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: i 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. Loti Whir. Frontaa' I. M..lurld At Sltback Un. (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. Hick I FIIg Loti , . . . , 'OO'Lot Width N' ,. I _._.J . I · '. I I ......... I , I I ,. I .. _ L____ _-.J Lot Line (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 ofOrd. No. 145 purported to amend ~ 20-615(6Jb. 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 CLl--tvcn vYX:.YYC- 3 ZONING ~ 20-908 increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required for the highest building otherwise pennitted in the district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, f 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 loti 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 pennitted 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.eBalconies, 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 SC/lL.6 : IN = 30' (880.7) (sel,Z.) axr~CV}y rrc:r- ve- ~ DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION . DENOTES PROPOSEU ELEVATION - INDICATES UIRECTION Of SURfACE DRAINAG V BBl. so = flNISHEU GARAGE fLOOR ELEVATION ~fr-~.7'j~BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION . BBI,83 = TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION CClmwcmF~ 'PlEOE1'Q8t) ~APR 18 1991 CHANHASSe1~DEPT f', I , ; 4J ~ (;f Z I , r '-J , I '-..J ~ t~ ~ (t\ i (~~v~ ..,./ I '" .. PJ?AIN'l6€ ANP VT/L/7Y 134!EM&VT ptAri ~^.~~~ be- "rr~@73. i:J ~ ~~~., ~4 " / /' I /{,oBS' Minn. ney. No. . 0LL----tvd J ~/ I~L ~. gn Works (R), Knox Lumber, # 217, Phone # 933-1046 I Apr 07 11:29:19 1997 materials in this deck will cost $5053.29 Price does not include any'Special Order Items. In: CQ4338 'iew For A Construction Detail Sheet Before You Begin Your Project MEETING RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Tuesday, May 20,1997 at 6:00 p.m. City Hall - 690 Coulter Drive Courtyard Conference Room SUBJECT: Rear Yard Setback Variance APPLICANT: Scott Wirth LOCATION: 361 Deerfoot Trail ~ Lake Riley NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Scott Wirth, is requesting a 1.6 foot variance to the 25 foot rear yard setback to allow the construction of a deck on property zoned RSF and located at 361 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 May 15, 1997. ~ g~lq1 IGREN BROS. . WAYlATA BLVD. ~TA, MN 55391 'PORTER KIOWA TRL lHASSEN, MN 55317 .LD & KATHRYN SITTER ..AKE RILEY BLVD HASSEN, MN 55317 Y A & HARRIET F BERSHAW (IOWA TRL HASSEN, MN 55317 ~ PEMRICK JR & :IOWA TRL -iASSEN, MN 55317 ; F & PATRICIA M DOLEJSI IOWA TRL -lASSEN, MN 55317 W & KATHRYN HALVERSON iOWA TRL lASSEN, MN 55317 i & KAREN L DIRKS IKE RILEY BLVD ASSEN, MN 55317 , G SAPP & DIANE K TAYLOR KE RILEY BLVD. !\'SSEN, MN 55317 G KRIER <E RILEY BLVD ISSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY L & KELLY R HASTINGS 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS R & ANN BAKER 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EUNICE ELIZABETH KOTTKE 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN & KAREN DIRKS 331 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 DAVID DUHAIME 4401 COUNTRY CLUB RD EDINA, MN 55424 RONALD YTZEN 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FREDERICK POTTHOFF III & 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN W ARDOYNO 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL KENT OLSON 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN 341 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOY A SMITH 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUCILLE LOUISE REMUS 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CATHY HARGREAVES 300 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT D & KRISTIN S REBERTUS 320 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 PAMELA N GUYER 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT MURRAY 360 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 KEVIN M & LINDA P SHARKEY 380 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL E & GAIL A TERRY 400 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD R & JILL M MADORE 381 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT ALAN WIRTH 361 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN A & PATRICIA A SEKEL Y 341 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ROBERT EVANS 331 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 KENTTAGE RAMLlDEN & 321 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 DALE B & DIANE KUTTER 301 DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 {lttzAch~ 7 Co '" fir. ,'Co (2- ~ I t\. l-t ~'\ ~v I- e l rO 'D .f- }C \~ C. ~1 D'(~ )- / Z 7 / ~ 7 C~M5Y4"t. ~~' / A~ ~ ;.. ;e:; ~ ~ 1J-- :0- t!J~ ~ "f/.d ?4 5 O--o.M. () _ II- ~ .r f).- I!,..wk ~ )14~ .J ~l~~ ~ ~ C~ ~~ ? )~~, ~ Sc~ f\. ,/J~ " )'c ..' rr I' tJ ( V' "Iv--. Y't) -7YII Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes May 20, 1997 Page 3 A REQUEST FOR A 1.6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK. SCOTT WIRTH. 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report. Scott Wirth stated that he needs this variance as the difference between an 8 foot deck and a 10 foot is immense. He stated that the drainage easement is causing the steps to be smaller. He stated that the neighbor's deck does not meet the setback. Kirchoff stated that all of the properties in that subdivision do meet the setbacks. Berquist stated that the deck should be redesigned so that the stairs fit between the easement and the deck. Scott Wirth stated that the railing and the decking will be in the setback but the posts will not. He stated that the lumber is only available in the 10 foot length. He stated that his lot is only 113 feet deep. Sharmin Al-Jaff stated that all of the lots in the Sunny Slope subdivision have 20 foot front yard setbacks because the lot depths do not conform to the ordinance. She said that the reduced front yard setback was permitted to allow a larger buildable area on these parcels. Wirth stated that many of the homes in the area have variances and that his deck will be 33 feet from the Lake Riley Boulevard. Watson asked if the applicant constructed this home. Wirth stated that he did, but at that time he did not have the money to construct a deck. He stated that his builder did not inform him that a deck would require a variance. Berquist asked if they had changed the shape of the easement. Wirth stated that they had with his consent and without compensation. He stated that the catch basin in the easement is dangerous to small children. Berquist directed staff to research this Issue. Watson stated that this deck is very large and that there has to be a better design with the amount of buildable area. AI-Jaff stated that it is not a hardship not to have two sets of stairs on a deck. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes May 20, 1997 Page 4 Watson stated that the applicant has an ample opportunity to construct a deck on this property. Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to deny a 1.6 foot variance for the construction of a deck. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to O. A REQUEST FOR AN 8.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACKFOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN PORCH. KEN AND TONI LUCAS. 6735 NEZ PERCE DRIVE. Cynthia Kirchoff presented that staff report. Ken Lucas stated that the house is currently very plain and they would like to beautify it. He stated that water problems are causing them to add a porch on to the front of their residence. Toni Lucas stated that the style of the storm door increases the heat in the home during the summer. AI-Jaffstated that Mayor Mancino directed staff to investigate porch encroachments. She stated that this will have to be done is a zoning ordinance amendment format and that staff has started preliminary investigations. Al-Jaff said that the next step would be to present it to the Planning Commission and City Council as an issue paper and if they felt comfortable with it, staff will develop the ordinance. She also emphasized that the Planning Commission and City Council has not reviewed this proposal and that staff believes the recommendation would be to allow porches to encroach 10 feet into a front yard setback. AI-Jaffsaid that even if this ordinance was in place, the applicant would still need a variance. Berquist stated that this will improve the front entry of the residence. He stated that it is a hardship if the front door is not usable. Johnson stated that he changed his mind because the front elevation will make the home look better. Berquist moved, Johnson seconded the motion to approve an 8.5 foot variance from the front yard setback for the construction of a porch with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a registered land survey of the property or at a minimum, have a registered land surveyor locate the front property line in the field. 2. The applicant shall be aware that the variance was approved strictly for the construction of an open porch. Any further additions or alterations to the front of the residence shall require a separate variance application.