Loading...
3 Variance 9225 Lake Riley BlvdCITY OF BOA DATE: 9/23/96 CC DATE: CASE #: 96-9 By:. Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: A five (5) foot west side yard, a five and one-half (5½) foot east side yard setback, and a forty-seven (47) foot lake shore setback variance, and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of twenty-five (25) percent, for the construction of a single family residen~teti0n by City Administrator 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard Lot 31, Shore Acres David Duhaime 4401 Country Club Road Edina, MN 55424 (612) 936-9280 Endorsed // ~!~ Modified Rajecte~ Date Submitted to Commission Date Submitted to Council PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: Approximately 7,825 square feet (. 18 acres) . DENSITY: N/A ltl I-- ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R, Residential Single Family S - RD, R~reafional Dmtelopment, Lake Riley E - RD, Recreational Development, Lake Riley W - RSF, Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: · ... .. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: · Available to the site · - . . ... · . The lot contains an existing 22 x 34 'foot one 'story.home;·. Several large trees are located on the property. The site is flat·" .'."....' i and level at the location of the proposed home. The front yard drops approximately 11 feet from the mad to the proposed home. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Lak Susan Lake Riley 8500 8600 8'7OO 8800 ' 8900 9000 9100 9200 9300 9400, 9600 9700 9800 9900 1ooo63 10100 10200 103~ 1OEO0 1050C Duhaime Variance September 23, 1996 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Section 20-615(4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. 2. Section 20-615(5)c. states that the setback for side yards is ten (10) feet. 3. Section 20481 states that the minimum setback from Lake Riley is seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high water level. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting variances to replace an existing cottage with a new and larger single family home. The house pad would be enlarged from 22 x 34 feet (814 square feet), to approximately 32 x 70 feet (2,000 square feet), which includes an attached two stall garage. Shore Acres was platted in 1951 and consists of 42 lots which measure approximately 50 x 170 feet. This area was originally developed with summer homes and cottages. Over the years, cottages have been replaced with year-around single family homes. Numerous variances have been granted to accommodate these year-around homes. Lots have also been assembled to create larger building lots. Of the original 42 lots, only 7 lots remain as single lots of record. (It should be noted that five of the seven single lots are located on either side of the subject property.) Shore Acres Subdivision currently contains 24 lots of record. Seventeen out of the twenty-four homes within this subdivision are located on more than one lot of record. The following variances have been granted on Lake Riley Boulevard: Variance # Address Type of Variance 93-10 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 11 and 12 4' lake setback variance for garage and home addition 93-8 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 38 and 39 9' lake setback and 8' front yard setback variance for home addition 92-9 92-2 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. LOt 29 36' lake setback variance for deck addition 14' front yard, 6.5' side yard, and a 7% hard coverage variance.for a detached garage Duhaime Variance September 23, 1996 Page 3 91-16 90-7 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 17, 18, & 19 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 1 Rogers Add. 89-13 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 15 & 16 89-1 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 42 87-8 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. 86-1 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 34 & 35 7.5' side yard variance for a home addition 12' lake setback variance for a new home 4' side yard variance for home addition 14' front yard, 7' lake, and 4.5 side yard set back variances for a new home 18' lake setback and lot area variances 40' lake setback variance for a new home The following table provides existing setbacks and width of homes found on adjoining lots: ADDRESS SIDEYARDSETBACKS LAKE SETBACKS WIDTH OF HO~ .... 9221 3 and 8 feet 38 feet (32 feet to 23 feet with 10 x 10 deck) porch 9223 Vacant lot 9225 Subject property (existing) 9227 2.1 and 6.8 feet 3 and 11 feet 9233 2 and 16 feet 52 feet 34 feet 53 feet (42 feet to 24 feet patio) 50 feet 24 feet Note: The five lots listed above are similar in size and have 50 feet of lake frontage. ANALYSIS The subject property contains an existing single family home. Under the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is entitled to a reasonable use of the property. The ordinance allows repairs and improvements to be made to the existing building without variances. Instead of working with and trying to improve an outdated and inadequate building, the applicant is requesting Duhaime Variance September 23, 1996 Page 4 variances which would allow him to completely remove the structure and rebuild a single family home. Variances would still be required if the applicant was to re-build on the same footprint. The applicant wishes to expand the existing footprint to construct a home that would serve as a year- round residence. Expanding the footprint of the building increases the need for variances. Staff is of the opinion that variances are needed to permit a reasonable use of the property. However, staff finds that modifications could be made to the variance request that would reduce the impacts on the lake and surrounding properties. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the request be tabled to give the applicant an oppommity to submit revised plans. Staff is requesting that the Board provide the applicant with direction on how to proceed. Staff would like to see the following information and changes to the plans: I. Maintain seven (7) foot side yard setbacks along the east and west property lines. 2. Maintain a forty-six (46) foot setback from lake, including deck. . 5. 6. 7. Driveway grade may not exceed ten (10) percent. Steps should be taken to reduce the grade by raising the garage elevation or extending the driveway length. The applicant may also wish to consider a detached garage. (A variance from the front property line would most likely be required.) Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations at the following locations: a) b) c) d) e) 0 h) Each lot comer. Top of curb or centerline of street at each lot line extension. Center of proposed driveway at curb. Grade at comer of proposed structure. Elevations and grade of driveway Lowest floor level, top of block, and garage slab. Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows. Provide contours at two (2) foot intervals or spot elevations indicating the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and other features. Show all trees in excess of six (6) inches in diameter. Show any proposed retaining walls and/or drainage swales. Show elevations of the first floor of building on adjacent lots. Duhaime Variance September 23, 1996 Page 5 Staff is of the opinion that the proposed home needs to maintain greater side yard setbacks. Other homes have greater side yard setbacks and/or are smaller in size than what is being proposed by the applicant. The property owner of the vacant lot to the east has indicated to city staff that he has plans to build on the lot within the next year, and would like similar setback variances. Cyreater setbacks could be achieved by reducing the width of the home and/or by reducing the size of the deck in order to pull the house closer to the lake (while maintaining a 46 foot setback). The applicant could also reduce the width of the home in the area where the lot becomes narrower. Moving the house closer to the lake would also reduce the grade of the driveway. A detailed grading plan is needed to ascertain the full impacts of the pwposal FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: ae 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 pwliferation 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 variance appeal as submitted is excessive of what is required to have a reasonable use of the property. Revisions could be made that would make the home more compatible with surrounding pwperties while maintaining adequate setbacks. As pwposed, the variance appeal does not blend with the pre-existing standards for the neighborhood. 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: A number of lots in this subdivision have justifiable hardships because of lot size and width. The hardships associated with these properties are generally not applicable to other properties in the same zoning classification elsewhere in the city. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Whereas, the new home will increase the income potential of the property, the variance appears to be based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the property. Duhaime Variance September 23, 1996 Page 6 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty is not self-created. However, the difficulties could be lessened by making the necessary revisions to the plans. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or neighboring properties if the necessary revisions are not made. A revised grading plan is necessary to ascertain the full impacts of this proposal. 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 increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation should not substantially impair an adequate supply of light and air, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety to adjacent property, if the necessary changes are made. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals table action on the variance request to give the applicant an opportunity to submit additional information and make the following -changes: 1. Maintain seven (7) foot side yard setbacks along the east and west property lines. . , . Maintain a forty-six (46) foot setback from lake, including deck. Driveway grade may not exceed ten (10) percent. Steps should be taken to reduce the grade of the driveway by raising the garage elevation or extending the length of the driveway. The applicant may also wish to consider a detached garage. Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations at the following locations: a) b) Each lot comer. Top of curb or centerline of street at each lot line extension. Duhaime Variance September 23, 1996 Page 7 Center of proposed driveway at curb. C_wade at comer of proposed structure. Lowest floor level, top of block, and garage slab. Elevations and grade of proposed driveway Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows. Provide contours at two (2) foot intervals or spot elevations indicating relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and other features. Show all trees in excess of six (6) inches in diameter. 6. Show any proposed retaining walls and/or drainage swales. 7. Show elevations of the first floor of buildings on adjacent lots. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from David Duhaime stating reasons for the variances. 2. Application dated August 28, 1996 3. Survey showing existing building 4. Survey showing proposed building 5. Elevations of proposed building 6. Floor plain of proposed building 7. Plat map of Shore Acres 8. Plat map showing properties which received variances the August 28, 1996 Chanhassa~ MN 55317 City Of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Duhaime - Request for Building Variance at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard The following will serve to outline the specific details related to the requested variance as well as to justi~ the mann~ in which this request complies with the criteria for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58) as follows: A. It is my intent to replace an existing, seasonal structure with a year -round home. B. The lot consists of approximately 50 feet of lakeshore which reduces to a width at the street of approximately 35 feet The two side dimmsi~ are appproximately 170 feet on the east and 193 feet on the west. The narrow nature of the lot makes it particularly difficult to make a reasonable use of the property and comply with the 10 foot side yard setback. Nonetheless, the centering of the proposed structure would actually result in an overall improvement to the side yard setbacks as compared with the existing building. Co The footprint of the neighbedng house to the immediate west of the proposed new home has been included on the plot plan section of the blueprint so as to illustrate that the reasonable use of the pwperty by the proposed new home would be very much in conformance with the existing house next door. This helps to substantiate that the the requested variance would result in a use of the property in a manner which is very comparable to the use made of similar adjacent and surrounding properties. D° Substantial effort has been made to utilize the critical boundaries of the footprint of the existing home as well as to conform to the standards of the adjacent homes with respect to the design and placement of the proposed home. The south wall of the propsed new home would be no closer to the lake than the existing structure. Because the existing structure and the neighboring homes to both the east and the west are already closer to the lake than current code allows, a compliance with current code for the proposed new home would result in a view to the lake which would include approximately 20 feet of the sides of each of the neighboring home~ This would be very undesirable and would look peculiar in that the new home would be very much out of conformance with the neighboring properties. II. Detail. A. South Wall. The wall of thc proposed new home nearest Lake Riley (south) would be located at the same point as that of thc existing structure. This location places thc south wall of the proposed heine 52 feet from Lake Riley, maintaining thc current, legal, non-conforming use of the property, in this respect. B. East & West Walls. As the plot plan on the far right of the blueprint indicates, the width of the proposed heine, as measured from the outermost edges of the east and west walls of the pwposed home would be slightly lesser than that of the existing structure. The placement is also changed slightly to more evenly locate the new home so as to maximize the side yard setbacks on both sides. Duhaime - Request for Variance - City of Chanhassen August 28, 1996 Page 2 of 2 a. West Wall. Th~ west wall of thc existing home is 3.9 feet from the lot linc at thc southern comer. This would be improved to :5 feet. (2) The west wall of the existing home is 2.1 feet from the lot line at the northern comer. This would be improved to $ feet. b. East Wall. (1) The east wall of thc existing home is 6.8 feet from thc lot line at the southern comer. This would be improved to 10 feet. (2) The east wall of the existing home is 6.8 feet from thc lot line at thc northern comer. This would be reduced to $.5 feeC C. North Wall. The most significant change to thc footprint of the new home versus the existing structure is in the extension of the new home northward, toward the street. This extension takes the overall length of thc new versus the old structure from 22.2 to 70 feet. This increased length includes an attached garage which makes up approximately 24 feet of the overall 70 foot length. The inclusion of the attached garage in the overall length dimension is an important note, as the neighboring house to the west has an overall length which is slightly more than the 70 feet of the pwposed new home - and has an additional detached garage located at the northernmost edge of the lot near the The existing property does not have a garage. D. Deck to Match Adjacent Homes. The pwposed deck would extend out from the back of the house toward the lake to a point which, at its maximum, intersects with that line which would be drawn between the furthest extended points of the deck on the house to the east and the raised patio on the house to the west. This is also illustrated by the plot plan on the blueprint. E. Elevation & Style. As the fi'ont (street aide) elevation illustra~, the proposed home would be a two story '.'A-Frame." Thank you for your consideration of the enclosed and the foregoing. Sincerely, David A. Duhaime · Enclosures CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIO'N ' APPLICANT:David A. Duhaime ADDRESS: ~0! Country Club Poad Fdina. NM 55~ TELEPHONE(Dayfime) 612-9~6-92~ OWNER: David A. & Susan u.. Duhaime ADDRESS:4401 c.~un~rv Pl,~h ~oad TELEPHONE: 6 ] 2- q ~ 6- q 9 ~. ~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Intedm Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning __ Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements yy Vadance Wetland Alteration Permit , Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 CU PISPRNACNARNVAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within S00 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 1t" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged, for each application. · PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT I.AND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES NO This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly pdnted and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of T'~le 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 submis..;~,3n 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 The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. .~.._.~ .-' Signature of Applicant Signature of Fee Owner --~ Date. ' Date ' Application Received on "~ b~/q, Fee Paid~ 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 t..o the applicant's address. CERTIFICATE OF sURVEY'''~ /~ ~ ~ vi · . .~: -' '-..;... :..;:.?::~'.:i~... . +3 -~ ~~~ ' 'CUSTOM'HoMEs. ' ~ ~-.~,~~~~ .... ,,._...~ _ ~ KlM A, REA~E BOOK PAGE PLAN, OR REPORT W.~S PRE~ARE~ ~Y ME · . ~1 REVISIONS s~E o~ ~Eso~. .. . , ~ t .... ,. , DATE , 4 .. · -o - . %. .' .~ . " :".,. .! t ' " : · .__..~.~--o "~:,, I · ; ,. ,' '. ;"t...;;'.~. -:'~ 'i.,' I .T' .o O. · . · . .. · .. .r . . I I I III · I I ~ J I ~ I 14~'' I . I · ROBERT G. ROGERS ST O~/rLOT, ! ., ,, ,' e~N,mUll~ SM '. ir:' :/'! J . ....'...;~,. · · ~ '.~ . £.; ............ ~ ......... BI:VD, LI'Zl · vfiCIl, l, NIl, ITT qzt~a ROBERT G. ROGERS CTF. 18026 a~w 9ZND ST OUrLOT , . ./ .o ·.: E. IHRAHKA ! NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Monday, September 23, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive PROJECT: Side Yard, Impervious Surface & Lake Shore Setback Variances DEVELOPER: David Duhaime LOCATION: 9225 Lake Riley Blvd. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, David Duhaime, is requesting a side yard, impervious surface and lake shore setback variances for the construction of a single family residence on property zoned RSF and located at 9225 Lake Riley Blvd. 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 John 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 September 12, 1996. Robert & Doris Rogers A4917 Diane Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Leland Sapp & Diane Taylor c/o Ceridian Employer Services 5354 Parkdale Dr., #200 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Dennis & Ann Baker 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ronald Ytzen 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paul IC Olson 9239 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lucille L. Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Kristin Rebertus 320 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kevin & Linda Sharkey 380 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott A. Wirth 361 Deerfoot Trail Chanhasse. n, MN 55317 Kent Tage Ramliden & Naomi Kahn-Ramliden 321 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Donald & Kathryn Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Curtis Krier 6016 Raymar Dr. Minneapolis, MN 55436 Eunice E. Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Frederick PotthoffllI & Judy Potthoff 9231 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sunnyslope Homeowners Assoc. c/o Gail Terry 400 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & Mary Ellen Jessup 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Pamela Guyer 340 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paul & Gail Terry 400 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Patricia Sekely 341 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dale & Diane Kutter 301 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alan & Karen Dirks 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gregory & Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert Evans 331 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 John Ardoyno 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanlmssen, MN 55317 Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 David & Cathleen Hargreaves 300 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel & Jean Christensen 360 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & Jill Madore 381 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Christopher & Christine McGrath 5829 Olinger Road Edina, MN 55436