Loading...
1 Variance 7301 Laredo DriveCITY OF BOA DATE: 4/8/96 CC DATE: CASE #: 95-9 VAR By: Rask:v ¸.4 STAFF PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 2000 LAND USE PLAN: REPORT A fit~een (15) foot variance from the seventy-five (75) foot lake setback requirement on Lotus Lake, and a twenty (25) foot variance from the bluff setback requirement. 7301 Laredo Drive, Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills First Addition. Richard and Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 949-8785 RSF, Single Family Residential Approximately .5 acres (23,000 square feet) N/A N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RD, Lotus Lake, Recreational Development W- RSF, Residential Single Family Available to the site The site contains an existing single family home. The home is located approximately 20 feet above the OHW elevation of Lotus Lake. Low Density Residential Lotus Lake ur I-- _ [-! " ..L ,,,,,'.", ~ State Hw¥ 5 Susc~n ~1 / Rice }f arsh Lake 690 ~0 710~ 720~ 7300 7400 0 Park Lake^ -x?/ve E. 8100 820O ~C 840C Peters Variance April 8, 1996 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20481(a) states that the minimum setback shall be 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake. BACKGROUND Sunrise Hills First Addition was created in 1956 and consists of 28 lots. This area of the lakeshore is developed with single family homes. The home on the subject property was constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Regulations and is located approximately 75 feet from the lakeshore. A porch consisting of patio block is located on the lake side of the home. There is a total of six homes located along the lakeshore within 500 feet of the subject property. Of these six homes, only one does not meet the minimum lake setback requirement. This home is located north and adjacent to the subject property. A variance was granted for this property on August 5, 1985. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a 25 foot variance to the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a 20 x 32 foot deck and porch. ANALYSIS The applicant has demonstrated a unique hardship in the location of the existing home and patio. The proposed deck will be situated over the existing patio and will not be any closer to the lake. Both the patio and home were constructed prior to the adoption of the shoreland regulations. Adding a deck over the patio will not increase the impervious surface or negatively impact the shoreland. Minimal site preparation and grading will be required for construction of the deck. Whereas, adding a deck over the existing patio would be considered an intensification of a non- conforming use or structure, it should not negatively impact adjacent parcels, nor should it be more obtrusive when viewed from the lake. In addition, the adjacent home to the north received a variance to construct a deck at 50 feet from the lake. Staff recommends approval of the fifteen (15) foot setback variance for the construction of a 15 x 20 foot deck. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they fred 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 b. C. d. e. Peters Variance April 8, 1996 Page 3 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 fi.om them meet this criteria. Finding: The applicant may have a reasonable use of the property with the existing patio. However, a deck located over the existing patio would not increase the impervious surface or require significant site modifications. The proposed deck would not encroach any further into the required setback than does the existing patio. Further, the existing home and patio were constructed prior to the adoption of the shoreland regulations. 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 adjacent property to the north received a greater variance for the construction of a deck. Other properties meet applicable setback requirements. The establishment of the patio prior to the adoption of the ordinance creates a unique hardship. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The variation does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the property. A reduced setback has been established with the existing patio. Whereas, a deck is an intensification of the use/structure, it should not be more obtrusive nor should it be any more detrimental to the lakeshore. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is not self-created as the home was constructed prior to the adoption of the ordinance. 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 proposed variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed Peters Variance April 8, 1996 Page 4 location of the deck is over an area which has been disturbed by the existing patio. 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 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 property values. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve Variance #96-2 to allow the construction of a 15 x 20 foot deck at 60 feet from Lotus Lake based on the findings presented in the staff report and with the following conditions: An escrow fee of $50 shall be submitted for recording the variance against the title to the property. 2. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be used during construction. ATTACHMENTS . 2. 3. 4. 5. Application dated March 6, 1996 Letter from the applicant Survey of Property Deck Plans Letter from Alan J. Fox dated April 3, 1996 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements 12. X~ variance 3. Interim use Permit . Non-conforming Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 14. . Zoning Appeal Se Planned Unit Development 15. .. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. ,li~slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81{," X 11" R~K''~'~ eg3)'.ef Imral~e'~ney fer <~e~' p"~'~ ~heet. · NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract J PROJECT NAME ~CATION LEG~ DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ~'~, is is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Date Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on Date 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 to the applicant's address. .- REQUEST FOR VARIANCE We are requesting a variance to add a deck to our existing home. Our home is located at 7301 Laredo Drive on Lotus Lake (lot 12, block 1, Sunrise Hills First Addition). The purpose of this request is to receive a 1 $ foot variance to the required 75 foot shoreline setback. The proposed deck will be situated, or cover, a earth filled patio that presently exists up to 15 feet from the house setback of 75 feet. We are not asking to construct this deck any closer to the lake than the present earth filled patio. Below is the written justification required for granting a variance: A. The present patio is situated approximately three feet below the floor level of the home which does not allow access from the first floor. Access can only be obtained by exiting the walk-out basement and walking up stairs or by exiting the home from the front at ground floor and walking around to the back. Additionally, we both have $1 year old mothers who cannot handle stairs and, at this time, cannot access the patio when visiting us. A deck built over the patio will allow us to gain access to the deck directly from the ground floor. B. Neighbors on both sides of us have decks similar to what we are requesting and have received variances for these decks from the city in the past. One neighbor requested and received a variance in 1985 for a 25 foot setback, 10 feet more than we are requesting. C. We are not requesting this variance to increase the value or income potential of the property. We purchased this older home in 1994 with the intentions of updating it and keeping it for our retirement. The deck will allow us to make better use of and enjoy the property. D. The difficulty in using the deck was not serf-created. Back in 1960 when this house was built, the patio was built as not to be accessible from the ground floor. Since than it has become very common place to have a deck on lake homes that is accessible from the ground floor of the home. E. The granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. 1. The site topography preclude adverse impact. We will still have a 60 foot setback with a moderate slope to the lake. There will be no impact to the land past the 15 foot setback. 2. The present patio already has a 60 foot setback. Our plans are not to extend the deck any further away from the house than the present patio. Builder Develaper Cabinet Idaker SCHOLER, INC. Tract Office, GR. 4-6261 Box 35, Ch..anhassen:_~innqsot"~- I °' Res. GR. 4,-8008 3. The variance will in no way alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor will it circumvent the intent and spirit of the regulations. F. The proposed variation will not impair fight or air to adjacent property as it will only cover the existing patio. It will not impair other property values, in fact, by adding a modem wood deck it will match the surrounding properties and enhance their value. It will have no impact on neighborhood congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of' fire in the neighborhood. In conclusion, the proposed variation will allow us to better utilize the lake side of our home by providing ground floor access to the outside of our home. The deck addition will allow our property to better match the surrounding properties that already have decks, some of which required variances that put them closer to the lake. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and will be available to present our case to the city at your request. Thank you, L / \\ N=ISSVHNYHO .,-I0 ,M. IO . OOC-'