Loading...
2 Variance 9225 Lake Riley BlvdBOA DATE: 9/23/96 CC DATE: CASE #: 96-9 By: Rask:v Z _J STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: A five (5) foot west side yard variance, a fivo and ono half(5½) three (3) foot east side yard variance, 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 ora single family residence. 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard Lot 31, Shore Acres David Duhaime 4401 Country Club Road Edina, MN 55424 (612) 936-9280 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: Approximately 7,825 square feet (. 18 acres) DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R, Residential Single Family S - RD, Recreational Development, 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 sit~ is' fiat. and level at the location of the proposed home. The front yard drops approximately 11 feet fi.om the road to the proposed home. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential !-J ~ Lak~ 5'usan - ' ~ ' 'arsh Lake Riley 8500 8600 8700 6800 ' 8900 9000 9100 9200 9300 9400, 9sc.~ 9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 10100 10200 10300 10400 1050C Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS UPDATE On September 23, 1996, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the variance requests of Mr. David Duhaime for property located at 9225 l_ake Riley Boulevard. The Board tabled action on this request to give the applicant an oppommity to submit revised plans. The Board members did not all agree on what the appropriate setbacks should be for the proposed home. Mr. Senn indicated that he would be willing to consider a variance request that would provide a 5 foot east lot line setback, a 7 foot west lot line setback, and a lake setback variance that is consistent with surrounding homes. Mr. Senn also expressed a desire to have the applicant save the trees between the existing home and the lake. The remaining Board members, Ms. Watson and Mr. Johnson, agreed with Mr. Senn on the setbacks with the exception of the five foot side yard setback on the west lot line. Ms. Watson and Mr. Johnson stated that they would prefer to see, at a minimum, seven (7) foot setbacks along both side lot lines. They also indicated that they would like to see the driveway grade reduced. Testimony received from neighboring property owners was mixed. Most favored the one and a half story design, but expressed some concern with the reduced setbacks. The owner of the vacant property to the east was generally in favor of the plan as proposed. Changes are highlighted in bold throughout the staff report. 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 3-3 30 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 Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 3 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 Tvoe 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 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 36' lake setback variance for deck addition 92-2 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 29 14' front yard, 6.5' side yard, and a 7% hard coverage variance for a detached garage 91-16 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 17, 18, & 19 7.5' side yard variance for a home addition 90-7 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 1 Rogers Add. 12' lake setback variance for a new home 89-13 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 15 & 16 4' side yard variance for home addition 89-1 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 42 14' front yard, 7' lake, and 4.5 side yard set back variances for a new home 87-8 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. 18' lake setback and lot area variances 86-1 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 34 & 35 40' lake setback variance for a new home The following table provides existing setbacks and width of homes found on adjoining lots: Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 4 ADDRESS SIDEYARDSETBACKS LAKE SETBACKS WIDTH OF HOME 9221 9223 Vacant lot 9225 Subject property (existing) 9227 3 and 8 feet 38 feet (32 feet to 23 feet with 10 x 10 deck) porch 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 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 tho opinion that variancos arc nooded to permit a roasonablc usc of thc proporty. Ilowovor, staff finds that modifications could bo mado to tho varianco roquost that xvould roducc tho impacts on tho lake and surrounding proportion. For thcso roo~ons, staff is rooommcnding that tho roquost bo tablod to give tho applicant an oppommity to submit mvisod plans. 8taffis roquosting that tho ~oard provide tho applicant xvith dirootion on how to procood. 8taffwould likc to soo tho folloxving information and changos to tho plans: 1. Maintain soven (7) foot sido yard sotbacke along tho east and xvost proporty linch. e Maintain a forty six ('16) foot setback from lake, including dock. Driveway grade may not cxcood ton (1 O) pcrcont. Stops should bo taken to roduco tho grado by raising tho garago olovation or oxtonding tho drivoxvay longth. Thc applicant may aim xvish to consider a dotachcd garago. (A varianoo from thc front proporty linc svould most likoly bo rcquirod.) Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 5 . Submit a dotailod grading and drainago plan shoxving oxisting and proposod olovatiorm at tho folloxving locations: a) b) c) d) o) O g) h) Each lot comor. Top of curb or oontorlino of stroot at cash lot linc oxtonsion. Contor ofproposod drivoway at curb. Grado at cornor ofproposod stmoturo. 51ovatiorm and grado of drivo~vay Lo~vost floor lovol, top of block, and gm'ago slab. Indication of dirootion of surfaco svator drainago by arrows. Provido contours at two (2) foot intorvals or spot olovations indicating tho rolatiol~ohip ofproposod ohangos to oxisting topography and othor fcaturo~. 5. Show all troos in oxoo~s of six (6) incho~ in diamotor. 6. Shmv any propo~od rotaining svalls and/or drainago s~valos. 7. 8hoxv olovations of tho first floor of building on adjaoont lots. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed home needs to maintain a greater side yard setback along the west property line. 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. Greater setbacks could be achieved by reducing the width of the home. and/or by reducing tho oizo of tho dock in ordor to pull tho houso closor to tho lako (whilo maintaining a 46 foot sotbaok). The applicant could also reduce the width of the home in the area where the lot becomes narrower. Moving tho houso closor to tho lako xvould also reduoo tho grado of tho drivoway. A dotailed grading plan is noodod to asoortain tho full impacts of tho proposal The applicant has revised his variance appeal by reducing the width of the home by two feet, raising the elevation slightly to reduce the driveway grade, and stepping the northeast corner of the house in to provide a greater setback along the east property line. The revised appeal provides a five foot west lot line setback, a 7 foot east lot line setback, and a 54 foot setback from the lake, excluding the deck. Staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated hardships in the size and shape of the lot. The existing lot is approximately 180 long with 50 feet of lake frontage, and 35 feet of frontage on the road. The lot contains an existing home located at 2.1 feet from the west lot Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 6 line and 6.8 feet from the east lot line. Because of the increase in the size of the proposed home, staff is recommending that seven foot setbacks be provided along both side lot lines. Other homes within this subdivision located on a similar size lots are narrower in width than what is being proposed by the applicant If the appropriate side yard setbacks are maintained, the proposed home should not negatively impact surrounding properties, or impair light and air to adjacent residence. The revised driveway grade is 11 percent City Code states that driveway grades shah not exceed 10 percent The property currently contains an existing driveway which has a 14 percent grade. Therefore, the proposed driveway will lessen the non-conformity by reducing the slope. To further reduce the driveway grade would require additional f'dl material and a larger retaining wall, which would negatively impact drainage on the neighboring parcel. The proposed driveway will utilize a small retaining wall (1.5 - 3.0 feet in height) to reduce the driveway grade. Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of the driveway grade as proposed. No variance is required because the driveway is existing and the applicant is lessening the non-conformity. In the review of drainage patterns in the neighborhood, the City's Engineering Department determined that existing drainage patterns will not be impacted by the construction of the new home. Drainage over the subject property and adjacent lots may actually improve as the current home will block drainage to the west, and direct stormwater towards the lake through the use of swales. Staff would encourage the applicant to work with the neighbor to the west (9227 Lake Riley Blvd.) in improving current drainage. A swale could be utilized along the common property line to improve drainage on both lots. In addition, the proposed grading plan and home location will preserve the trees located between the home and lake, if care is taken during construction. Staff recommends approval of a three (3) foot east and west side lot line variance, a thirty- three (33) foot lake shore setback variance, and a variance to exceed hard surface coverage by twenty-five (25) percent FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals 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 Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 7 be C. d. eo 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 properties while maintaining adequate setbacks. Maintaining seven foot side yard setbacks would allow the home to blend with pre-existing standards while adequately handling surface water drainage. 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. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty is not self-created. However, the need for a variance could be lessened by providing a seven foot setback along the west property line. 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 will not be detrimental to the public welfare or neighboring properties if the necessary conditions are attached to the variance. A rovisod grading plan is nooossary to asoortain 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. Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 8 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 and conditions added. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: table action on the variance request to give the applicant an opportunity to submit additional information and make the following change~: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintain seven (7) foot side yard setbacks along the east and west property lines. 2. Maintain a forty-two (42) foot setback fromlake, including declc 0 Rain gutters shall be utilized to direct runoff from the roof away from adjacent homes. e Type III erosion control shall be utilized during construction activity and until the site is re-vegetated. 5. Tree protection fencing shah be utilized during construction. 6.' Drivoxvay grade may not oxoood ton (10) pomont. 8tops should bo tolcon to reduce tho grade of tho driveway by raising tho garage elevation or extending tho length of the driveway. Tho applicant may also wish to consider a detached garage. . Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan shoxving existing and proposed elevations at tho following locations: a) b) c) d) o) f) g) h) Each lot comer. Top of curb or oontoflino of street at each lot line extension. Center of proposed clrivoway at curb. Crrado at Col'nor of proposed stm~o. Loxvost floor level, top of block, and garage slab. Elevations and gl'ado of proposed driveway Indication of direction of surfaco water drainage by arrows. P~ovido Contours at txvo (2) foot intervals or spot elevations indicating tho relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and other features. Duhaime Variance October 14, 1996 Page 9 8. Show all trees in oxo~ of six (6) inches in diamotcr. 9. Show any propo~od romining ~valls and/or drainago s~vales. 10. Show olovations of tho first floor of buildings on adjaoont lots. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes from September 23, 1996 meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals 2. Revised survey dated September 19, 1996 3. Revised house plans 4. Letter from David Duhaime stating reasons for the variance. 5. Application dated August 28, 1996 6. Survey showing existing building 7. Plat map of Shore Acres 8. Plat map showing properties which received variances Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 REe-UEST FOR SIDE YARD, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND LAKESHORE. SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 9225 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. DAVID DUHAIME. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Is the original footprint, was that about 407 Rask: Yeah, the original footprint I believe was 61 feet. Or actually excuse me, it looks 52 feet from the nearest comer. Watson: So this deck is how large? Rask: It's 32 feet wide by 20 feet deep. Long or protruding away from the house. It's 23 feet, and then it's the width of the house which is 321 believe. So with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Johnson: You figure what, about 46 feet? Rask: Yes. 46 feet was the average. The DNR, they have a provision. There is a provision in the statutes that allows the averaging of setbacks. We did not adopt that part of the state statute which allows that averaging but we do use it as a rationale for determining what is an appropriate setback in these instances. Watson: I have just a comment to make, atter reading this...and it's kind of discouraging that people who have the privilege of living on the lake and also have the responsibility therefore of protecting that lake, are the ones who want practically to build inside of it. They want to go wall to wall on the lots. They want to cover the whole lot with a building or deck or driveway or something, and I guess the last few proposals we've seen here on lakes have been very discouraging as far as any responsibility towards the lake and what's going to happen to it. I mean we've come in and we've got 52% impervious lot surfaces. 17 feet or something from the lake .... DNR can't possibly fLx up a lake fast enough to keep up with that. Rask: Yeah just to, the setbacks of 7 feet were obviously taken from the most recent request that we had, which was real similar to this. I mean the Board and the Council both had quite a bit of discussion on this issue as far as what is an appropriate setback when you're dealing with these smaller lots. Watson: Right. Instead of it that...certainly it's better than what we had seen. Johnson: ...gentleman address this and then we'll come back to comments from the rest of the Board. Senn: In your impervious calculation, did that include the deck7 · Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Rask: Yes, that did include the deck and the driveway. Watson: The 52% then. Rask: Correct. Johnson: ...address this... Jim Corrigan: I'm Jim Corrigan, and I'm the builder and this is Dave Duh,ime the homeowner. I just have a couple quick things. I want to address the responsibility issue, and I can definitely see your point on most lots. The size of these lots are, they make it, as you can see...42 lots...and that's our argument that these lots are too small to actually build on and Dave made an attempt to buy the lot next door but wasn't able to do that. So we're stuck with this and it's almost impossible to get the 215% impervious ratio on these lots and get a house... I'm not sure if that showed up anywhere on any other lots...that 215%. I can't see making 25%. I mean I can see the responsibility but I think to try to meet 215% is almost impossible. Watson: ...but anybody's use for a deck is not necessarily 23 x 32 so you know. I mean I understand what you're saying but also we're looking at things that go beyond the. Jim Corrigan: On the deck, that's not a concern of our's. The only reason I think they put in a 23 foot deck, he doesn't plan on building a 23 foot deck. Is that they drew a line between the two homes on each side and that's what, on the original plat, if you drew a line between the two houses, it showed that we had room for a 23 foot deck and we thought that was reasonable, as long as we stayed in line and didn't move any closer to the lake than the homes on each side. And we did talk about moving the house forward 10 feet, which we thought we'd be willing to do but the only problem I ran into was this huge oak tree that we really can't move closer because we'll kill that oak tree and take that oak tree out. If we move it closer. So we're almost at the point where we have to keep that footprint the way it was on the original. On the original survey, at setback. So we're not, definitely not close enough to be on the 17 foot setback. And I mean we're more than willing to be at 40 feet to go along with the 40 foot lakeshore setback. It's just, we don't intend to move the house forward because of the oak tree. And then we were, where... house, we tried to maximize the side yard setbacks but we unfortunately found out that we were at 3.92 instead of over 15 feet. The couple of issues that I guess I'd want to look at is, I know the staff recommended 7 feet on both sides. The only problem with going 7 feet on both sides, where we're trying to encourage 15 feet on both sides, is that at 7 feet on both sides, you without a doubt would have to go to a two story house. And a very narrow two story house, and you may as well make a wall to the neighbors. Almost more of an eyesore than if you go with a story and a half and are able to put a couple of bedrooms on the main level. It allows more light in and I think it's more appealing to the whole neighborhood rather than a real narrow, two story house. So that's the big issue is the setback here. And yeah, he recommends 46 foot setback. I mean we're real close on that. What shows up on the survey right now is that's just one of those things that the person that drew the plans just drew a line between the two houses. I think the house 'next to it had a 32 foot setback and we're looking at probably about 40 foot setback. And then Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 the driveway issue, I think hinges on the first two issues. From...we have no problem coming up with that information at all. Showing the trees and all...but I think the big thing we're looking for direction on is side yard setback. If we can have 5 feet, I think we can put a better looking home on the lot than if we had to go with the 5 feet because at 5 feet, or at 7 feet we most certainly have to go to a two story house. A narrow two story house, and I don't know if Dave has anything to say. Dave D~hairne: I think Jim covered most of the issues. I just want to point out a sense that I have where we really would like to get some direction because I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place. Again we purchased this lot, which is, if you look on the survey, the width reduces as you get up towards the road and so you're in a position where if you try to position any home, that they'll keep playing with on this lot, you will align yourself either with one side or the other and which ever way you align yourself with, you create yourself a problem in the opposite back comer because the lot reduces as you go back. If you look at the table of side yard setbacks that John has prepared here, you can see that that's a common problem to the lots in that area. Where they've got, in most cases, a very small setback. 3 feet, 2.1 feet, 3 feet and 2 feet are the smallest side yard setbacks in all four of those properties listed on this table. And on the opposite side, because they've aligned themselves parallel on that side, they can create more room. What we've tried to do here is center it as much as possible, and if you look at the plan and you look at the home that was next door, you can take that particular home when it comes to the coverage issue. If you were to take the footprint of the home next door and overlay it on the existing property, I think that you can see what I'm talking about is, if you took the existing house fight here and laid it in scale on top of the proposed home fight here, you're almost in terms of lot coverage, looking at the identical situation. One difference however is that their garage is incorporated into this home so this whole part here is garage and so I think from a standpoint of coverage, we're doing a, I thought when the architect came up with this, a good job of taking what's already existing in the area and making what we're doing here similar, or more conservative in the case that we considered a garage. Of building a garage into this. And we went to the 1 ½ story specifically because in addition we think it has more of an aesthetic appeal to create that look. But this home, would in any event...or 5 feet, this one here...would be so closing into it that if you go with that wall as he points out, on two stories, you're going to be looking at a wall there. The sun comes across in this direction and we thought if we made it a story and a half...more air flow, more light and everything. We did put a lot of thought into that. Also as Jim points out, just so I'm sure it's clear. If you draw a line from this deck to the deck on the house over here, that's how we came up with this proposed deck length. That's completely arbitrary and not particularly important to me at all. I have no, I certainly don't have an objective of covering the lot with deck. With another consideration here as you increase the elevation you need to get down on the house.., onto the ground level somehow and over the course of that kind of...The deck is not an important issue to this plan and I think what we're, oh the other thing I wanted to point out is, the existing house is 34 feet so we'd come in 2 feet on both sides. And in every single case...trying to move the house back or move the house forward, 'and then counting the fight-of-way and the house with a detached garage...so hopefully we can get something definitive this meeting... Johnson: ...does anybody else wish to talk? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Ronnie Ytzen: The only thing. I'm...and I live right next door. I live... Johnson: State your name please for the record. Ronnie Ytzen: Ronnie Ytzen~ I live at 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. I like the idea of a story and a half house. I guess the only concern that I was really thinking about was the side yard setback on my house, and I've 'been there for 25 or 30 years and I've seen like four houses bum down in that area so I'm very nervous about houses close to each other. Every place you go you see the same thing. Houses really close to each other. I think with just a house a story and a half, as you said, it does allow for people...to look across and see some of the lake. It looks more airy. I have a feeling that if he's required to raise his driveway, it's going to create quite a drainage problem and all the water can flow right down between the two houses and puddle up in there so that's something that might be addressed or something to give thought about if you require him to raise the driveway. That's aH I have to say, thank you. Alan Dirks: My name's Alan Dirks. I have the lot on the other side of Dave and I would have ~ loved to have bought the lot. But after this meeting perhaps I can. I just want to encourage you folks to know that on those lots have been sitting that way for a long time. He's...there's no place to go...so I'd just encourage you to see that those lots originally were just small.., small little homes...owned one of those that Ron mentioned that burned to the ground and the only reason I've been waiting to do anything with my lot is because I was hoping to get one of the side lines. And so now that it's there, I'm all for putting something nice on that and I'm going to put something nice on mine and make the whole neighborhood... 5 feet, plenty of room for him to, I mean to access...as far as fire fighting and that kind of thing, that is true but I mean you're constraining a lot on the lots that you have already...so I looked at what Dave had put together for a home and I just wanted to come in here and...on the other side and...fine with what his plan is .... I know it's a tough thing for you guys to figure out too, what to do with this as far as what's best. If you own lakeshore in Chl~nh~lssen, you've got to do something with it... Eunice Kottke: My name Eunice Kottke. I live at 9221 Lake Riley and we have been through... not intentionally. I first drew up plans for...home in about 1985. '84 or '85. It was approved immediately by the Council, or the Plavning department. It was...all of the statutes which meant that we had to stay on the footprint and my home is exactly on the footprint as the summer place. We could increase...but it was our choice to go up because I didn't want to lose any...and I find it a very livable, lovable house. With the...somebody came up with a new street plan. I never made it...I was working. I had a job at that time. My work was in Florida winters for 6 years w while the house was being...was to the garage down next to the house. That would have eliminated all...to the house...I want you to understand why it is...I'm also a woman and I don't want to be shoveling 8 feet 6 inches out to...just about what your elevation is. I'm not sure. That's what mine was and so that's why I worked and worked and we eventually got the garage at the road...boardwalk so that people can come down comfortably. There's a lot of things happening so that...get rid of the shed and get rid of some of the...but I welcome to the neighborhood. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Senn: I've got a suggestion. I think this works. I do not have a problem with the lake setback as long as whatever we do stays at the outer most part of that line. Johnson: 445 foot? Senn: Well yeah. If somebody lands a number there. Rather than just say, so I would say align the outer edge of the deck with the line between the two neighbors, okay. So now that's the outer edge of your deck. Reduce the deck that 12 feet. Move the house forward, okay. With the stipulation...that line of the deck to 12 feet. Back the house up to it...down a little bit further, okay. Which will bring it... Maintain at least a 5 foot setback on the west side and 7 foot setback on the east side, okay. Driveway would be reduced to a minimum width. I had 10 feet down but I don't know, John I'll leave that up to you guys, which would help with the impervious surface. · And the addition put on, that only a one and a half story house can be put on this...and then just basically throw in the other staff conditions regarding... Rask: Yeah, as long as we can get past the driveway. The slope of the driveway. Jim Corrigan: How about the tree? We've got a...very much appreciate this discussion. This is kind of like...the tree that comes into play if we try to move the house closer. It's about, it's not shown on there but what would you estimate? It's about 4 feet. It's a big oak. It's a 100 year old oak...but it's maybe 3 or 4 feet in and over a little bit probably from the house... Senn: But your deck goes there anyway. Jim Corrigan: Your deck can go around the tree. We're talking about going down with a foundation and I think it'd be. Senn: Okay, so your other plans that you're talking about...talking about building the deck around the tree? Jim Corrigan: No. I think you technically could go on the side of the tree with the deck if you followed that side of the house. But if you put a foundation under there, you're going to now be so close to that tree, as to cut off. I don't know. Watson: How far between the house and that tree were We? I mean. Dave Dohaime: ...fairly close. Rask: That 7 feet would be... Watson: I'm going to make a motion then we can discuss and, okay. After we get a motion and a second on the floor then we can discuss it. Okay. I make a motion to table. Johnson: Okay, I'll second that. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: And provide some information for them to go with. Senn: I think that makes sense. I think we've got to pin point where some of this stuff is. Watson: Because this tree...I don't want to pass on it and I certainly don't want to say we don't want to do it. I think we just need to provide some of the information that it needs to go forwaxd. Senn: If it works out what do you think of the suggestion? The question is now we need to put it on paper and from where everything is in relationship to it. Watson: Right. When we have, on the east side you said there's 5 feet? Senn: Yeah, I was saying 5 feet on the east side. 5 feet setback on the west side, I'm sorry. 7 feet on the east. Watson: What's on that side? Is the east side...? Rask: That's correct. Watson: And how far is that house from his property line? Rask: About 11 feet so you're providing a 16 foot separation between the two structures. The side of the 7 feet is kind of the unknown. It's the undeveloped lot. Watson: Okay. Johnson: You want to go 5 on this side? Senn: Well I'm just looking...speaking of the widths...give somewhere. If you go 10, let's say you go 10 on the other side...balance it out. You've got 16 over here. You've got 17 over here. It seems to me the balance... When the neighbor comes in with a proposal, we're going to go to 10. Ifwe hold at 10, then like I say, we've got 17 there and 16 there. Watson: Okay, then we get down to the issue of impervious surface. If we can get rid of a lot of, and that's one we can get. Senn: Yeah, that's reducing the deck in half. Okay, effectively. And it's also reducing the size of driveway because it's going to help on thc impervious surface. Watson: Now where are we coming with the DNR as far as how they're going to feel about our decision? If we were to move the house forward. Senn: Are we going to table? ' Can we table and...provide that direction. I'm supposed to leave. ..you guys can keep discussion. I don't want to cut that short. You know how I feel and he knows how I feel .... I agree with you. I want to see the tree. I want to see wherever. Board of Adjustments and Appeals- September 23, 1996 Watson: Yeah, and we have to incorporate the DNR...more information. Senn: Yeah, from the DNR standlx)int. I would not, I'm not insistent on 25%... I think we'll go a long ways towards doing that. As far as the lake setback, I won't agree with them on that either. I mean from that standpoint I think we need to maintain in unison what's there now. I mean I don't want to see something going closer to the lake than what's there now but at the same time I'm not going to sit here and tell somebody to move their house back when all the other houses are down here. Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals table the request for side yard, impervious surface, and lakeshore setback variances for the ~- construction of a single family residence located at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Jim Corrigan: May I throw something out or is that out of order? ... That 5 foot setback side that you were talking about that we've got 16... On the other side was the unknown or the empty lot. Where we need the 5 feet is in the very back far comer...so we're really talking about I think it's 8.9 or something...So on the one side we could utilize the 5 yard setback...and use it. Senn: I don't have a big problem with that. You guys can figure this. Sorry about that. I've got to get to the other meeting... Watson: Bye. Come again. John~n: You're talking about maintaining on the left hand side 5 feet? Watson: Yeah. Johnson: ...far comer. Watson: Well...far comer which is the worse case scenario and...7 feet... Jim Corrigan: Is there a way to make it a setback...over the course of the lot? Rask: It's always whatever the minimum is. The minimum setback is what you need the. variance from. ' Jim Corrigan: Well we can commit to the placement of the house that recognizes the small part as a non-conforming legal use and build I ½ stories which meets... Watson: Then if we move the house forward, like Mark was talking about, and we cut this deck down to 12 feet. Isn't that what we decided? Rask: Yeah... 12 feet. Board of Adjustments and Appeals- September 23, 1996 Watson: Okay...we're still over 10 feet. 10-11 feet. Somewhere in there. Rask: Yeah I think. This revised plan you have before you tonight, this one, they brought the house forward 8 feet from what was originally proposed. Watson: So we're looking at another, moving it forward another 10 feet? Rask: I don't think that's possible. I think this is what Mark was referring to. It'd be two additional feet here. To basically keep it in line with what's currently on it. Johnson: But he wants to stay even with the neighbors... Watson: Even with the neighbors and then move the house and move that 12 foot deck which... And that would, and John was talking about a tree and stuff so perhaps that is. Rask: Yeah, there are some significant trees to the front of the existing cottage. Between the cottage and the lake, which probably would be okay with the placement of the house because by the time you get construction equipment in there and you impact the red zone, you're going to lose them eventually even if they don't come out now. That was a concern of our's from the start. Even with the original proposal, the closeness there. Even though the house paid isn't on them, we've learned through experience that, especially with oak trees, they're very sensitive to any type of construction activity. We had our forester out there to look at them. She thought 50% at best with that proposal. Jim Corrigan: Could I make one more comment? Johnson: Go ahead. Jim Corrigan: On the, Councilman Senn mentioned drawing a line between the two and I guess I'd like a couple things. Whether or not we drop the deck or patio from the house and... averaging them out between what he says is 54 feet and 32 feet and averaging it to 46 and then you draw a line, I think there's a big difference between those two. Between those two soI just wanted to make sure that's clear. If we draw a line, I think we'd be more than willing to go along with that line and then determine what that line is. If it's from the patio and the deck or if it's from the house and right now they're showing that from the house and not necessarily the deck that sits out in that 10 feet or 12 feet or something. I guess that's what I'd like to... The other thing on the grade of the height we're putting in. I notice...the height of the driveway, that's another thing we were considering. There's another oak tree in back so that's why we're trying to keep it down a little bit to try to help preserve another oak tree as well so those two things. Watson: Yeah, and that's kind of an engineering issue, and not being an engineer, I'm not willing to tackle the...and height and move this and move that you know. That's what that guys sits there. That's his job. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Johnson: ...use that patio is... Watson: And the house itself rather than decks because. Jim Corrigan: Our's would encompass the deck. Rask: Yeah, the DNR does consider the deck to be part of the structure. Watson: Well I understand a deck is a structure but when we're trying to figure out where, you know the deck being 10 feet or 12 feet or deck's kind of. Johnson: Yeah so if you figure, let's just as a figure say it's... Watson: Worry about the building. Johnson: Let's say that you average that in and come up with a figure of 46 feet. That's where the deck has to start and then the house. Watson: Yeah, the house would have to be, I mean the deck and then build the house...sidewalk even would be supposed to be 46 feet away. Johnson: Yeah, we want nothing closer than 46 feet. Rask: Okay. Yeah, I took an average of all the, well I took an average of this one, this one, this one, this one and the one adjacent to it. And I included in an average...so that's where I had come up with the 46. Watson: And even though there isn't a house on the lot...that all the responsibility for setbacks cannot be his. Rask: Correct. Watson: The setback responsibility has to be divided equally between this gentleman, and the gentleman who's going to build a house. Nobody's responsible for that in and of themselves. So I mean if we...like you were saying we wanted to come up with 16 feet or something or 17 feet between the houses, it's going to have to be an equal 17 feet. Not all the responsibility, the 10 feet responsibility on the neighbor who ham't happened to build yet. And the other, the smaller portions here. We can't do that in all good conscience to the person who's going to try and put a house on another skinny little thing next door. Johnson: Yeah, because we don't know what's going to be on next door. Watson: I think...like he's building a tower either .... No, It's actually 20 feet. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Jim Corrigan: Can we coordinate that? Alan, if you know how you're going to place your's and I know how I'm going to place mine and we end up with... Watson: The only problem is, you probably won't own your house forever and either will.he. We have to do this as though, it can't be kind of an arrangement between you guys. It has to be something that's logical from a zoning and business standpoint that would fit and look reasonable. I don't want to have to move away from Cho~hassen because we. Audience: We have a house at 9203 Lake Riley, which is up the hill from there. And we have 16 feet right now between our two homes and I have about...and my neighbor has...and they were both existing structures that we were dealing with .... some of these _things that we always...try to lay the garage where it's narrow and slowly expand out and some of those are just kind of restrictions of building too... Watson: Right, so we want to'be sure that you're not dealing with something more restrictive than him simpl, y because we've decided that we are going to end up 16 feet between these two houses and if he's using say 10 feet of that, then you're going to be responsible for more of that setback in order to come up with the 16 feet... Johnson: ...and he's already built then we've got to deal with the new guy that you sell to and he'll say well gee, how come you allowed this to happen? Watson: We always start with 20 feet and try to stay as close to the integrity of that 20 feet as we can, and still allow some...but the 20 feet is a minimum and the variance process begins the minute you say I want less than 20 feet between these two houses. Audience: Then the 16 comes up as kind of a. Watson: No it was picked, Mark just picked it. I mean it still seems like a reasonable figure but there's nothing magical about 16 feet or 18 feet or 12 feet. It's just... Johnson: I'd rather see 10 put on both sides but we were trying to come up with a compromise of some sort. Watson: See everybody's equally responsible for that 20 feet. Audience: Right. I understand. I agree with you whole-heartedly on lots that are being developed now... Johnson: After you've been here a couple years on this Board. Watson: When you talk about variances...been there, done that you know. Johnson: And I feel if you crowd them too much, you've got to realize the fact you're going to get from that front right yard is the street being considered. It's in the lake. If you build right up Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 to the neighbor's property...and the neighbor decides to put a fence fight up there, how are you going to get by, you know. That's why I look at this. I've been on a few of these cases where a guy got mad and they threw up a fence and you don't have any room to get by. Audience: Our kids are going to be playing together anyway. Johnson: Things change. Jim Corrigan: You know John you gave us a plan that you said was, here's one that's two story. If we build that, you know a couple things apply and we really try and used a two story plan...which we looked at. First of all I think it's going to be very offensive... The second thing, that plan shows, and this was a big problem. How do you get from the street into this house? ~ · You've got a garage sitting where the back of this house is. You end up...and so you don't end up being able to get through the house and so that's maybe you house for example, it has no door facing the street. It'd be a side door, which is how you enter that which means you'd be coming in and out. . . of his house and I think that would be also... Watson: And that's why I assume those houses will end up with detached garages because, in order to accommodate that... Jim Corrigan: I just wonder if you do that, if you go with a detached garage, and...anyway from the street... Watson: Of course it does. Of course it does. Jim Corrigan: You know compared to what we proposed, which is very charming. Rask: Well just about anything that can occur on this lot is going to require variances. Either from impervious surface, setbacks. The only thing that wouldn't...to save at least :50% of the structure and build on that. You could build up or improve what's there. Anything else is going to require a variance. If he went two full stories, he's fight. The concerns do come in with light and air. However, that may be reason to deny two story. The Board certainly has the fight' to. Watson: It is one level. Rask: Yeah. What it boils down to is what's reasonable for this property compared to the adjoining structures and what's been done out there now and staff's position, the 7 feet seems to be adequate given that the other homes adjacent to this are 23, 24 feet in width. 6 feet smaller so. Watson: Let's go with staff's 7 feet. That's what we did before too and I think... Johnson: Can you work with something if we give 7 feet on there? Rask: I think that kind of contradicts what Mark's 5 feet on the one, which was basically the motion made. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Well the motion was to table. Rask: That was different from the direction given by Mr. Senn. Johnson: Because I'd rather see you hold to 7 feet...understand where Mark's coming from. Watson: Well I sort of picked 7 out of the air before because I decided that I could get comfortable with it before on that other 40 foot lot. We've been here before. The 7 feet because that way, even if the adjacent person builds 7 feet from their property line, you still have at least 1.4 feet, which is not wonderful but we only have 40 foot lots to begin with so. As far as the distance from the lake. Without knowing exactly where those trees are and how this would... When you look at redoing this, can you just look at doing it without messing around, but on the next time, can we see where these trees are and how big they are. Because I looked at the lot and it was hard to know. I'm not a good judge of distance and how far something looks from something else. Rask: That's on part of the recommendation is to show trees in excess of 6 inches. Watson: Yeah, so that we can see...and if we move the house forward, cut the deck down, how much can you do that without disturbing. Johnson: Watson: Use your 46 foot. I think we can use that... Yeah, using that as the basis for the least amount we can be from the lake. Johnson: Is the DNR going to go along with that? Watson: As far as this house, I'm trying to envision where's your garage... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Jim Corrigan: ...I think at this, in fact 24 foot houses? Is that correct with what you're describing right now? And so that house there is room, given the I ½ stories, truly becomes a hallway because the pitch of the roof makes that room so narrow when you try to get what we would shoot for there is 5 foot walls... As you move that in you're, you'd end up with nothing. Watson: I know and I still feel we have to be more concerned with how this thing sits on the property when you're desiging the house. Right? Johnson: I feel that way too. Rask: Yeah the setbacks are the issue here. Watson: The setback is the issue for us. House designs. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Jim Corrigan: You can't deal with 5 though on the one side and something that compromises on the other because that we feel would be doable. Still maintaining and having... If I go 7 and 7, I've already told him, start over. Johnson: I'd rather see 10'but I'd go along with the 7 and ?. I realize it's a bad situation with these small lots but we've work with them for years and. Watson: Do you have enough John? .Rask: Yes. Watson: We've already moved on this to table...when you work something out we'll get it back. Rask: Yes, the first meeting in October. Watson: We want to leave that public hearing open then so we won't close the public hearing. Johnson: Yes...there's just two of us. Watson: Yeah, we'll withhold the Minutes until next time too because Mark isn't here. I have one comment to make before we adjourn. Johnson: Sure. Watson: There's a variance that the Council granted in Saddlebrook for the storage building. When those storage buildings are built and they put those roll doors on them, they look like one car garages sitting at an odd angle out in the middle of a bunch of lots. I'm sure there are people who drive through and think, why would anyone want to do that? And I have to ask, the question does beg for an answer. So if, I don't know. If they're going to use those rolled doors, I think we have to be more concerned about the placement on the lot. It does look like a one car garage planted out in the middle of this green space when and they put little petunias in front of it to think that's going to... Because of the rolled doors, it doesn't look like a storage building. It looks like a single car garage. Just for future reference. If it was even not at an angle or something. A little more, there's just something about when they sit at this angle... I make a motion to adjourn. Johnson: I'll second. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Submitted John Rask Planner II Prepared by Nann Opheim UHV Y FOR '~'~ "-'---~ cusToM HOMES ,,,.. ..,;~;..., .., 4KE RIL "~/_'~ , =-& '-~. '. ,,, _ ~,h..~'~ ~ ,~,, '~,.~d r';'n,~w~/ t. Ec~t. ~zscatP?tO. · ~ Carver County, ~ Minnesota. ~ I ' '' ' I '-. ., ,- ~*~,, _~ ". ~ , ,. :; ' EXIST~ ELEV4~ ~ ~~g~e~ / I (~a) 0~ ~OPO~ ELEVATION /-' KlM A. REA~E BOOK PAGE *'* - . . . : .--.~. . .' · :.- ... PROdECT NO. SHEET '~ '*:~:~ ,~v o;~,,:- s'*;.~** ..;* A..: REVISIONS S'*Sv~VOR -. ; . ., '. .... : , ' ,. .' - ' . ' .'4. ' - ",..":~ . ' · , . t..' '~ -:; "'" ' ' · ': I ' ' .'. o ,' , ' '" ' .... .." · · · "~' ~ · · ;'. ', .'?.,.:-..*... .... ,,,*.,.~ '~,: "'" '"' ""::'-':'""'"<~'""::"i':'" · ' ' · !~ . - . ~ ~ .~) ~' : ,...~,. :...~- ,. ,.'.:': . .. · ~1~ - .,- ' ..,, ' ' · · ' · · "' ',~' ;~./ % 1" . '"""'"' ' · : -- - ~'. - ,,' · ~' i Ir~ ",.'..,,;~:,~,'<~,[~ · -[ .~,, ' '~ .', .... · · ..'. - . . '.~ . ". · '. ' ' z ' .. ' ~ '.' .,; .... .,',.." -:?_~,,~,.. ~ .... : ' ' · Ds ,~ ~ ~ ' ' · ~1 "' .;"'.h.:.:;:/,. :-..- '~'~'~'..'~- · . - -- ..... ~, ' .' ~' '.- -.s.'~ ...... ..:, ,4~' ., . ' . ~ ...... '. ' :':':' ....",Z..: '~: -., '..' - - .: . ' q ... ~i '. ~t .- ' "' ' J: ' "::':':;"': '. ': : .... ".'. " ' " ~ , , . - , . .' . . ,~' , ' . ... ' .... '\ ,~:: '" :,.e.i.';' .. . "! .... ': .... .. .? ' ' · ' · .' "' ''~q'.." .~ t..:.'.~?, ..',;- /',~,': ' · · .' ' ,~ '.' '. :,: .' . . ." '" . - · ' ( ' lr,~'/.'.:'~:'..?..~,':',": '.' '.".": .: . . . ... ~ _ . .....; .. . ~, .-,~:.~ ,. .,- . ,~,,, .... ,. ,_,~ - . ........... .~~.-...~.~.. ,. ~. .....,_. : . · ' . .... . - ' . . ' .' . 'Ii'...., .'.:'.' · ,'."~:;:?..,.'.~.-I S"~",::.'.:.: '. ' :' ' , ! · · " '. .,' ' · . . "...'~" :,-.',' .' '::-.',"..;~ ~':.' ¥'"':-:i".' · ':. ' ' } ......... · . . ...-. ~.;' .., ,~:,..~.~:~. .... . .... · "~ - · ., -----'--" · ·. · .- ...... ,,~,z ...... . - -- . - · - ' ' ' -- -- : '- I ' '.; ' · '..'.:~.' ,*,~ ,~', ." ' .--::~,',,,'~,, ..' .'.,-,.'.'," .. ;'..:,~:' : · !I~t' ' ' '~ . .... (; .," · ....~'' : .=.,.. ~; . .-; ~ ,,. -L ~.,~ , ''." . ,..' ', , ' . .',..~i~!,.,;,..?,".'~.-,.:,~ '-'4. i" · ..- ........... ;-" .: .' .~-' '1" .-" "..: ,-'.'~",:."-..." ,,'.-::.r.-.,:;?. , .":::.,.';:, ;' ' ' ',,'. - '-'. "~ ".,: 0 -'.-' ..,-,' .' - ..... '.. ~'-,' ?t:'~-:'-;:~ ""' ', '".~ ::.'.:~!'.':'" :'., ' i ,. ,.:,,......,, -: .. :.,: .. ..... '~'" i ' · ' ' ' : "~ "':"' ' '"' "' ':" ~''-"-"I'~ '- -"; "'" ~ ' . ..'. ';:':. · ' -." :', I~ -; .'.'. : 'r;t°,. · . -. , , ~ .,., ~' . · ~ ' . ~ ,~ ,~ ~ . ~,.~. .. , ., ,'-... . ,.. .: ..,-. -. ,.... ~ -~ · ,..: · · ', ,. ' ..... ~". ; .' ~ · ~-' . ''... -,, ' ,~' '";,' ':'.::':':"~.~.~' -3" ',:i '~, ; *v'_,~-~. :~--.., · ~. · _ , ~/' ~'~. _ _' ' ;,~ ·' . '"Ii.. -" ' , ~ ' ' ' : ' ' '' i. t, ' '- '~" '- '-' ~'~'~' · ', .',. "'"" , '" . :'-" "-' !.,I · ....,....n~ ~ .... ..:. ,.. -',.'.. ~,.)..,' ...'""4;,;;J~~-"~-,-:'L:., -.' .:'.; _1-... .... ~-.-.., ..,'. .... :..: ,'-. ltJt · . .. · ., :',.x~.:...:,::[ :.,......., ' .'..'....,". ~]-"..'. '. .:,...' ".c." ..~ -: ,,~ t"" ' :',.""~- '-,,:, ,"':,--, ::':'."'-' · ' ~-- · ,- -' ' - - -- · ' '_ ~ · ' ". ~ ' · ' ,. ' , '- _ ~,' _ ' . · . .-., .. '.. ~... . :,.'. ,. ?, ,. ~.,::'. .' .,..,/ - · ~ ......... · -'~--~.~~ -'>--;::'~':'--~-.~---'--'~~"-~-:~..~:~.---,-".-~,..:~--,~' ~k-':: ~"; -"., ,'."].~-~ ~..~, ...:, .'. - .'.*.,.', .- ,,, :-.',.:~:.':'. ?'.~,:,.,'~.' .,, ',;-' '~ ', · '-'1 i · ' ' · ' · - - ' t ' t~- - .v. ~ ~--"--r-~-, ' - ' ~,':' .'-"" : ? "~'"* '"~ '" * : ' "-. · . , . . . .,, -.- ...... :- · ,- -...~ .... . . . ,. . ,. : .., . · .. ....:..,: ./..: -:.....: ..... .. ...~: ........ ~ ..... ~. ~ .,./.~,~.~, .... . .. ... . , , . . ~ ., . , . ... . ~ ,, ....... . .,. , .r . .,..,~.,.T.: : . ,,; ~. .~ .~ .. · . , . .... . .,.: .' ...... . . .. · .:~... . . . .? · . ~.,.,. ....· . /;" ! ,..: ,','~.;~;~...,:;~ ~,j.*',"~-~ ~ ~ .~.'~ -. . . · . :.,. . ..~ , , · , ., . .., ..... . ~ - _,,it~,"t~ ,~. . ~',~,. ~'.~,-, .~ ~' . · ',. · · . ....... . ... . · .. . · , .. .., . .,- ...;~,-- :..~ ~ . ~, . _.:,,...,. =.,, · .. · . · . .,,... · ... . · -........,..: --...,~...... "' . ~ ' ' ' '''' :' ':' ';' ':'"'~:"".-:""' '" ':' ""' ': ..... 4~ '"" '" ': ";""';"";v:'"r'::::'":'"~?""~~~"'" August 28, 1996 Chnnh~.,~en, lVIN 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 ns to justify the manner 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 dlme~,ions are apppwxinmtely 170 feet on the east and 193 feet on the west. The narrow nature ofthe lot makes it particularly dimcult to make a reasonable usc 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 neighboring 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 property 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. Do 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 homes. 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 the proposed new home nearest Lake Riley (south) would be located at the same point as that of the existing stmctm-e. This location places the south wall of the pwposed home 52 feet from Lake Riley, maint~ the 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 home, as measured fix~m the outermost edges of the east and west walls of the proposed home would be slightly lesser than that of the existing struck. Thc 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 West Wall. (1) The west wall of thc existing home is 3.9 feet from the lot line at the 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 corner. This would be improved to 5 feet. East Wall. (1) The east wall of the existing home is 6.8 feet from the 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 the lot line at the northern corner. This would be reduced to 5.$ feet. C. North Wall. The most significant change to the 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 the 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 thc attached garage in the overall length dimension is an intporUmt note, as the neighboring house to the west has an overall length which is slightly more than the 70 feet of the proposed new home - and has an additional detached garage located at the northernmost edge of the lot near thc street. The existing property does not have a garage. D. Deck to Match Adjacent Homes. The proposed 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 thc deck on thc house to thc east and thc raised patio on thc house to thc west. This is also illustrated by the plot plan on thc blueprint. E. Elevation & Style. As the front (street side) elevation illustrates, 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 55317 (6t2) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Dav~ ADDRESS: 4~0! Co~n~v Cl~h R~d TELEPHONE (Day OWNER: David A. & Susan .u.. Duhaime ADDRESS:4401 c. oun~rv c.l~h TELEPHONE: ; 1 ~.- q q ~.- q ? ~. ~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Intedm Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Subdivision* Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 CU PISPRNACNARNVAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ 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 8W'.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. TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES NO This apprmation must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.  '~A dete~na~ 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 ~ regard to this requesL 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'~e or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized parson to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I re'Il 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 pdor 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 - ~ Date. ' il~.~Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on ~ ~~' Fee Paid/'"~ ~ Date ' 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. .o - 00h 'T 0 , Q: .t ].O0,G;BoOI