Loading...
2 Variance 600 Fox Hill Drive ! - 'o',1 I l i ! PROPOSAL: ~OCATION: APPLICANT: ? PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE' CITY OF BOA DATE: 5/20/97 CC DATE: CASE #: 9%2 By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT A request for a 6.5 foot variance from the 25 foot from yard setback for the construction of a. deck. 600 Fox Hill Drive (Lots 3203-3210, Carver Beach) Rick and Dee .amn Hale 600 Fox .Hill Drive ChaM~assen~ MN 55317 RSF, Residential Single Fan~ly Approximately 16,000 sq. ft. (.36 Acres) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N/A RSF, Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: P~IYSICAL CHARACTER: ! 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Available to the site The site contains an existing single-family residence. Low Density Residential O01: OOZ: 00~ 00~ 009 00/. .. IJJ Z ~ © © OO8 006 0001:: 001:1: - I f:tale Variance .lqay 20, 1997 l~age 2 ,APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ~eCtion 20-615 of the City Code requires all structures to maintain a minimum of a thirty (30) foot s~tback from the front property line (Attachment 2). S!ection 20-908 of the City Code states that unenclosed decks may project five (5) feet into a r~quired yard (Attachment 3). ,, I~CKGROUND Iri,' June 1989, a request was made by a previous owner for a 12 foot front yard variance from the r~uired 30 foot setback for the construction of a deck (Attachment 4). The staff report states that the applicant had an opportunity to use the property and construct a deck within the setbacks. This r~uest was denied because staff nor the Board believed that there was a hardship. Tiais, home was constructed as a reverse walk-out, meaning the front door enters into the basement a~d the back door is on the second floor. Thus, the applicants have experienced difficulty moving l~ge items in and out of the residence. The applicant would like to install a patio door and deck on tl~ southern end of the home. The applicants feel that this will solVe the access problem. The back d~or has a landing and stairs, however, the door is too narrow to maneuver large items. A~ALYSIS Tl~e current application is a request for a 6.5 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback for unenclosed decks to construct a (14' x 15.6') 218 sq. f~. deck on the front of an existing r~idence. City Code already permits unenclosed decks to project 5 feet into the front yard, thus, th~ 25 foot rather than the 30 foot front yard setback. The deck is proposed to be located 18.5 feet from the front property line. Currently, the residence is located 32.5 feet from the front lot line. A~cording, to the applicant, the interior design of the residence has caused a hardship. An undue hctrdshil~ means that property cannot be l~Ut to reasonable use because of its size, l~hysical surroundings, shape or topography. The physical characteristics of this site do not prohibit the apPlicant from constructing a deck in another location. Tile Carver Beach area predates the zoning ordinance, therefore, variances have been recommended fo~ certain situations. Staff has reviewed the variances that were granted in the area and found that they generally involve lots with a small area or steep topography. For instance, a variance was gr4nted to the applicant at 580 Fox Hill Drive in 1991. This variance allowed the appliCant to co,stmct an addition 22 feet from the front property line. The staff report indicated that the lot area w~ nonconforming and that the average front yard setback in this area is approximately 22 feet. Hale Variance May 20, 1997 Page 3 Another variance was granted in 1993 for the property located at 6880 Lotus Trail. This variance was granted because the lot fronts three streets and the proposal decreased the nonconformity. Staff suggests that the deck be placed on the eastern side of the residence or that the door on the western side by widened for large items. Another option would be to construct the deck out to the 25 foot setback, however, the deck would only be 7.5 feet in depth. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a4 bo co That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: Staff believes that the physical conditions of the site do not create a hardship for the applicant. That is, the size or topography of the lot does not prohibit the full use of the property. This is a large lot for this area. The applicant does have a reasonable opportunity to construct a deck on the eastern side of the house within the setbacks. Although staff does acknowledge the inconvenience of the interior of the applicant's home, this does not, in itself, constitute a hardship. The ordinance also states that a reasonable use includes those comparable uses within 500 feet. The average front yard setback within this distance is 22 feet. Allowing a setback not to exceed 22 feet will not create a precedence but will maintain pre-existing standards within the neighborhood. This will allow a 10.5 foot deep deck rather than the requested 14 foot. 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. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. I ~ale Variance May 20, 1997 ~age 4 Finding: The purpose of the variation does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding Staff believes that the hardship is partially self-created. The applicant knew prior to purchasing the home that the interior was poorly designed. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff has safety concerns with the distance the deck will be from Fox Hill Road. 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. R~COMMENDATION s~aff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "lhe Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommends the denial of a 6.5 foot variance based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: r ? 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a ~ variance. 2.' The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a deck and enjoy their property." ; S~ff would recommend approval of a 3 foot variance, based on the neighborhOod average setback of,approximately 22 feet. This variance would bring the deck out 10.5 feet from the home and thus w,uld line up this existing home with adjacent properties. Hale Variance May 20, 1997 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant's Letter and Application 2. Section 20-615, Lot requirements and setbacks 3. Section 20-908, Yard regulations 4. Variance 89-5 5. Site Plan 6. Deck elevations 7. Property Owners 8. Letter from Neighbor, 620 Fox Hill Road APPLIC, A~T: ADDRESS~ TELEPHONE (Day time) Co~nprehensive Plan Amendment Go~ditional Use Permit Int~im Use Permit : NorFconforming Use Permit Plea. ned Unit Development* ~ Reining _ Sigr~ Permits ~ Sigri Plan Review ~_ Site lblan Review* Subcjivision* NOTE - CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements /,,""'Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUPISPR/VACNAR/W APIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ "~' GO A li~t of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the ap~ication. Bui~ing material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~rwenht-six fu, size fo~ded copies o! the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'' X 11" reduced copy of tran~paren¢¥ for each plan shc~t. '~ F-~row will be required for other applications through the development contract ~h~ multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LE~ DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESEN/ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PR]--SENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST q'his 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 Departme~ to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice Df application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. -Thib is to certify that ! 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 applica!ion 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. 1 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 authorkation to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my ,knowledge. The c'rty hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review exte~i~~ d.,~c'tZ~.~ plicant' ~gnature ef Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner ApI~licalion Received on Date ~ r~5. (~)(~ Receipt No. '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. I ZONING § 20-613 Sec. 20-$96. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the RR" District: (1) Commerdal 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. Seca. 20-$97--20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. "RSF" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86) ~Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The (1) (2) (3) (4) ~ (5) (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. {Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) lupp. No. 8 following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: Garage. Storage building. Swimming pool. Tennis court. Signs. 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 referenc~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. Lore Where Frontige le Me&sured At 8etblok Une (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 setback line. lO01Lot ZONING #eck I Fl~g I.~tl Fron' Lot Line Width § 20-615 (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot minimum width. = b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. : c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. : (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. [Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1~ 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) -. Editor's note--Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend .§ 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ~ent of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included Ss amending § 20-615(7)b. ,upp. No. 8 1210.1 ZONING § 20-908 increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district. (Ord. No. 80, Ar~. VI, § 10, 12-15-86) Sec. 20.908. Yard regulations. The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measure- ments shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question, subject to the following qualifications: (1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed. (2) A yard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provi- sions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for another building. 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 requ/red front yard shall be provided on both streets. Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions: a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies, open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet; unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be permitted by conditional use permit. b. The above-named features may project into any required yard adjoining an inte- rior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above. c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a ten-foot minimum front yard. d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the following are per- mitted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory structures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balconies, breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one- story bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet. Supp. No. 6 1233 PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT- · STAFF PRESENT ZONING: iACREAGE: · · CITY OF ~A DATE: June 26, 1989 C.C. DATE: CASE NO: 89-5 Variance Prepared by: Olsen/v !ADJACENT ZONING ~ND LAND USE: REPORT A 12 Foot Front Yard Variance to the Required 30 Foot Setback for the Construction of a Deck 600 Fox Hill Drive Tom Michelson 600 Fox Hill Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RSF, Residential Single Family 16,000 square feet Nm Sm E~ Ww RSF; single family RSF; single family RSF; single family RSF; single family ~ATER AND SEWER: ~HYSICAL CHARAC.: 3000 LAND USE PLAN: '[ Available to the site Existing single family residence with the easterly portion in a natural state. Mibhelson Variance Ju~e 26, 1989 Pa~e 2 AP~LICABLE REGULATIONS Th~ RSF District requires a 30 foot front yard setback and does no- permit structures within the front yard setback. ANALY S I S The applicant is proposing to construct a deck on the front of th'e existing house. The proposed deck will be located 18 feet fr~)m the front yard property line and will require a 12 foot variance to the 30 foot front yard setback. The existing house isilocated in the northeastern corner of the subject site. Due to, the location of the house and the depth of the lot, the appli- cant only has room on the east side of the house to construct a deck within the required setbacks. Th~ Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the CoUncil shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts: A. iThat the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause ~undue hardship and practical difficulty. * iThe literal enforcement of the chapter would not cause undue' ihardship and practical difficulity in that the applicant still ihas use of the property and does have area within the site ~where the deck could be constructed within the setbacks. B. ~That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- !cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure iinvolved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to tother lands of structures in the same district. * ~he location of the house is causing the hardship but the ~ardship is not caused by special conditions of the site. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. * The applicant has substantial enjoyment and property rights With the existing residence. D. ~hat the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- ~equence of a self-created hardship. * ~he location of the house is causing the hardship. ? E. ~hat the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect ~he health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of ~he neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Michelson Variance June 26, 1989 Page 3 * Granting of the variance would not be in keeping with the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The location of the house is resulting in hardship to the appli- cant in locating a deck without requiring a variance. Although the applicant is limited to only being allowed a deck on the easterly side of the house without a variance, the hardship does not meet the five requirements of the ordinance and could in fact be considered a self created hardship. Therefore, staff must recommend denial of the request for a front yard variance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application. 2. Site plan. /! iII ,. City Council ~Meeting -.I ~ne 26, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Klinger also has' other problems. Not only being able to put a deck but he also seems to acquire all of the water within that particular area and there should be a swale in there that I suggested he contact those people so that has proper drainage. I walked out on that back yard and I sunk up to my ankles in mud and water. 5here's water standing all over in that back yard. Willard Johnson: I have to admit I didn't get to the property, I'll be honest becauser I didn't get the paperwork until tonight. Do you want me to talk about all 3 of them? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Well, let's take them one at a time. Roger Knutson: No one's appealled? Councilman Boyt: On one's appealled, is that right? Then we don't even vote on it if they don't appeal. Mayor Chmiel: %hen we can move onto item 9. VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TOM MICHELSON, 600 FOX HILL DRIVE. Willard Johnson: Similar situation you had here a couple weeks ago. Variance to a front yard setback. We c~uld not find any hardship in that situation. I feel for the applicant again, to be honest about it but I don't believe giving a variance to the front yard setback and the Board all agreed that we could not find a hardship in that situation. Counc{L~an Wor~nan: ~4aybe if I could make a conxnent. We had a variance request for s~mething almost identical to this a couple of weeks ago. I know they applied on the 5th. Wouldn't staff be able to say, you know it doesn't look good? I don't know, I guess everyone wants their day in court but I feel more sorry for, I don't feel sorry for Willard coming in early or anything but these folks come in and they just kind of get told something that I think I kind of had a good idea on already. They didn't have a snowball's chance. Don Ashworth: It would appear as though the application though was 5/5. CounciLman Workman: It was 6/5 I think. Don Ashworth: Is when it was paid for. The back side shows 5/5. Councilman Workman: I guess there's nothing we can do. Councilman Boyt: Tom, I think there is something we can do and I think if the City Council is consistent in turning these down, then staff will be able to say this is what the City Council has done in the past. People may save themselves money. I can say that over the last couple years with the old Council, there was, if anything, a lack of consistency so staff never knew if they were going to be supportive or not. That didn't allow them to give a strong position to an applicant. So I agree with you. I hope we can be consistent enough so that staff can say that this hasn't passed in the past and probably won' t in the future. 33 · City_~ uncil Meeting - Ju~"~.*6,.~i:_. 1989 ,, Counc'~lman Workman: I guess I'm not so much looking for consistency I guess. I go at, variances thinking I'd like to approve thsm rather I don't want to approve them so I'd rather look at them positively than negatively. I liked to help you impr-c~e your heine a~d add a deck and a pool and everything else so I'm still looking at them reasonably individually so I don't know that I'm lo~king necessarily for consistency. Although my actions have proven lately I guess consistent. I guess I was asking staff to perform something that they w~ren't goir~ to be able to do. Wil~rd Johnson: Excuse me, could I make a c~ent? I think Roger probably cou~ back me on that any citizen has a right to go for a variance even if he cal~s one of you people on the council and says, do you think I can make it and you say no. He still has, I guess that's his Constitutional right to come befl .re you if he wants to spend $75.00 or whatever the charge is to take a long sho'. at it, I guess that's his. Councilwoman Dimler: Tais Daniel Kerling and Robert Klinger, I talked to both of them afterwards and they were detaining me and that's why I wasn't here to sta ~t the meeting. Tney were rather angry so I guess we could alleviate some of theft too by giving th~n maybe an indication as to what their chances might be. Bu! the one thing they couldn't understand is what constitutes a hardship. I'm ju:~t wondering if someone can, I guess I really couldn't explain it to th~m either except that it can't be self-imposed but what constitutes one that isn't se.~.~ f-imposed. I guess I'd like to have somebody look into that and write a statement that we can explain to future applicants that are denied because they d~'t understand. W~llard Johnson: Mr. Klinger called me a number of times and I told him he had t~ work through City staff. I don't feel that I have the right to say hey, no y~u aren't going to get it or give him that impression. I don't want to put m~self out on a limb. ~(~buncilwoman Dimler: No you can't but all I'm saying is there some wordage that We could have that we could explain to them what constitutes a real hardship and ~ot a self-imposed one. I guess it w~uld help me out if I could explain. _~ayor Chmiel: Don, will you pull something together on that? Willard Johnson: Tnere again it's the contractor. I guess I'm going to nail ..~he contractor but it's his fault that they've got wall to wall houses and we've ~ot a number of these projects that are planned develo[/nents that have been _~iving us problems. I hope you people can work out something. ~Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you look at the tw~ houses with the 30 foot setback as 'they had from their property line, you'd have contiguous decks from one to the other. That presents a problem. Willard Johnson: Because you could have that whole string, if they all decided ~ to put decks out, you could hop frcm one house to the other. Mayor Chmiel: Their homes I think probably are the closest in that panticular area, which is a shame but that's part of the developer. Is Mr.. Michelson here? If not, as you indicated it was denied. No hardship. 34 [APR.O 8 299.7 0 Front Door NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Monday, April 28, 1997 at 6:15 p.m. City Hall - 690 Coulter Drive City Hall Council Chambers SUBJECT: Front Yard Setback Variance APPLICANT.' Rick & Dee Ann Hale LOCATION: 600 Fox Hill Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Rick and Dee Ann Hale, are requesting a 6.5 foot variance to the 25 foot front yard setback to allow a deck to be located 18.5 ft. from the front lot line on property zoned RSF and located at 600 Fox Hill Drive (Lots 3203-3210, Carver Beach). 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 April 17, 1997. ~,ARVER BEACH PROPERTIES C/O ADRIAN SON ;ELSIOR, N 55331 1806 ALEX ESS 6890 LOTUS T~L CHANHASSENi MN 55317 9559 JOHN D JR & L~JSA F LENSEGRAV ETAL 6880 LOTUS T~L CHANHASSEN~MN 55317 9559 P & C PALMERI 6830 NAVAJO CHANHASSEN,~N 55317 ROBERT PACI E~_~ NIK 6891 NAVAJO NHASSEN ~N 55317 9572 FRANK L & AND ::lEA L PA-FI'ERSON 600 BROKEN Al: ROW DR CHANHASSEN mN 55317 9569 MARK W & VAL~RIE NELSON 6890 NAVAJO D~ CHANHASSEN, IIAN 55317 CLARENCE & F ~EEFER PO BOX 5 EXCELSIOR, M~55331 0005 DONALD D PETfflRSON 6896 NAVAJO D~ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9571 JAMES & ELLEN ~J CRANSTON 695 CARVER BE4CH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9589 FRANK L & ANDREA L PATTERSON 600 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9569 PATRICK T & DEBRA JO MCRAITH 6900 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9559 G WAYNE HARTINGER & LANA L MATSON 6893 NAVAJO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG & MARY E RHATIGAN 599 BROKEN ARROW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RUDY E III & NANCY K KASTER 6940 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BENNO B & JILL M SCHAEFBAUER 621 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9569 MICHAEL O'KELLY 685 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RANDY SCHLUETER 580 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9538 STEVEN B MEZZENGA 631 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9569 ROBERT lAN AMICK 581 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9538 RICKI LEE HALE & DEEANN WALLENTINE-HALE 600 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9569 STEVEN C & SHARON L ASH 671 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 553!7 9569 KIRK FRIEDLINE 620 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CONSTANCE M CERVILLA 650 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9428 JEFFREY L KLEINER 655 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN._. MN 55317 9428 JON ALAN LANG 640 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9428 JOHN & JOYCE HAGEDORN 630 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9428 PHILIP M HANSON 35 NATHAN LN N PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 PHYLLIS ELIZABETH POPE 620 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9428