1 Variance 6690 Deerwood DriveCITY OF
STAFF
REPORT
PC DATE: 10/15/02
CCDATE:
REVIEW DEADLINE: 60 Days from
Submittal
By: Burgess
Il
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for a 13.8% variance from the 10% maximum driveway grade
(Maximum grade of 23.8%).
6690 Deerwood Drive
Tim Tillotson
6690 Deerwood Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ltl
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Single Family Residential
ACREAGE: 17,960.21 sq. ft. DENSITY: N/A
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
A single family home with an attached two-stall garage was
recently constructed on the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Low Density Residential
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or
denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning
Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the
burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance.
Tillotson Variance #2002-14
October 15, 2002
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-1122(b) of the zoning ordinance requires a minimum one-half of one (0.5) percent
and a maximum of ten (10) percent driveway grade at any point in the driveway (Attachment 2).
Section 7-21 requires an as-built grading survey showing the elevations of a lot after construction
and prior to sodding. In lieu of an as-built survey, the building official may issue a certificate of
occupancy provided that a one thousand five hundred dollar ($1,500) escrow fee has been
submitted. The escrow fee shall be returned to the permit applicant, without interest, upon
submission of an acceptable as-built survey. (Attachment 3).
Section 7-21-2 states that the submitted as-built grading survey be within a tolerance of +0.2 feet
of the approved grading plan. (Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
The property is a single family lot located in the Carver Beach neighborhood.
\
_¢IESTERN DR
\
/
The home was constructed in 2002 by the property owner. The building permit application
showed a maximum driveway grade of ten (10) percent. The property owner proposed to remove
up to 2 feet of material in the area of the driveway. The grading, as proposed, would have met all
City ordinances. The property owner has added up to 2 feet of fill in the area of the driveway. It
appears this fill came from excavation areas on site that were originally intended to be removed
from the site.
Tillotson Variance #2002-14
October 15, 2002
Page 3
With the additional fill, the property no longer meets the maximum 10% grade. The problem
was discovered when the as-built drawing was submitted for review and approval on the
property. According to the City Ordinance, the grades as submitted must be within +0.2 feet of
the approved grading plan. The new driveway is 4 foot higher than was shown on the approved
grading plan.
It should be noted, the hardship for this site was created by the builder, who also happens to be
the owner. The hardship was not part of the original lot. In addition, the builder has changed the
drainage characteristics of the neighborhood by adding the fill and changing the natural drainage
patterns in the area. Finally, it is anticipated that a vehicle leaving or entering this driveway
could have difficulty with clearance due to the 23.8% grade at the entrance. This is anticipated to
cause damage to the City street and will increase street maintenance costs.
The applicant would like to leave the driveway as constructed. The applicant has previously
shown that a driveway can be constructed to meet the City standards in submittals for building
permit.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a 13.8% variance from the 10% maximum driveway grade for a total
maximum grade of 23.8%.
If the variance is granted, the applicant would also have to provide the city with a contour plan
and drainage plan to show that there are no adverse effects to the neighboring properties.
Site Characteristics
The topography of the site does not limit the ability of the applicant to construct a driveway
meeting the 10% maximum grade set by City ordinance. This has been shown by the applicant in
the submittals made for building permit. The City has worked with multiple property owners
with steeper slopes to obtain a maximum driveway grade of 10%. While the applicant states that
it would be costly to reconstruct the driveway, the original mistake of constructing it more than
double the allowable maximum slope was made by his contractor and was not an existing
condition on the purchase of the property.
Reasonable Use
The reasonable use of the property is not constrained by the literal enforcement of the zoning
ordinance. The property owner has shown that the driveway can be constructed to meet the
maximum grade allowed by City ordinance, and in fact built the existing drive in violation of the
approved grading plan for the site. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity, for
which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are
Tillotson Variance #2002-14
October 15, 2002
Page 4
occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is
a single family home with a re, o-stall garage. The owner has a reasonable use of the property.
A variance is granted when a hardship is present. That is, the property owner cannot make a
reasonable use of the site without relief from the ordinance. In this instance, the owner has
caused his own hardship by not constructing the driveway to match the approved building permit.
Nonconforlning Driveways
Staff believes that a variance should not be granted because the steeper driveway is unnecessary
to provide access to the property. In addition, the City has been actively working with
homeowners that have driveways constructed prior to the ordinance being adopted that exceed
the 10% maximum to bring them into compliance. These driveways cause drainage concerns and
also damage to the City streets from vehicles dragging as they enter or exit the driveway.
FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue '
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical sun'oundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a
majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to
allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in
this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship. The building
permit submitted by the applicant clearly shows that a driveway meeting the 10% maximum
can be built in a reasonable manner. The applicant failed to follow the approved grading
plan which has resulted in this application for variance.
bo
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
in the RSF zoning district.
C,
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 variance would allow the improperly constructed driveway to remain in
place. The vm-iance would not be expected to increase the value of the property and may
cause a devaluation due to poor access with the substandard driveway.
Tillotson Variance #2002-14
October 15, 2002
Page 5
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The applicant created the hardship by not following the approved grading plan.
The grading plan, which complied with City ordinance, was approved at the same time as
the building permit and was prepared on behalf of the applicant.
e.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The variance will allow the existing driveway to remain in place. Drainage
information should be submitted if this variance is approved and the applicant required to
mitigate any drainage issues caused by the improper fill placed in the driveway area. In
addition, it is anticipated that vehicles with low clearance entering and leaving the driveway
will drag on the City street causing damage to the public right of way.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Comm/ssion adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission denies the request for Variance #2002-14, for a maximum 23.8%
percent driveway grade on the property located at 6690 Deerwood Drive based on the findings of
fact in the Staff Report."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application andLetter
2. Section 20-1122(b), Access and Driveways
3. Section 7-21, As-built Grading Survey
4. Public hearing notice and property owners list
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\tilIotson varianceXPlanning Commission Report 10-8-02.doc
Timothy Tillotson
6690 Deerwood Dr.
Chanhassen MN. 55317
Dear Sirs:
I am applying for a variance on my driveway grade. My driveway changes from 5.6% to 13.6% and
follows closely the naturally topography of the land. IfI dig it out to meet a 10% grade it will act like a
ditch and allow excessive run offinto adjacent properties. As it is now, it diverts he, aw runoffaway from
these properties.
This is an older neighborhood and many of the driveways are in excess of the 10% grade due to the
topography of the hills in this area. Deerwood Drive itself drops off steeply where my property begins and
is well over a 10% grade. We were aware of the 10% grade ordinance and understand that in a normal
situation this is a reasonable expectation for continuity in new developments. However, the topography in
this old neighborhood is very hilly and this is not a normal situation. There are many driveways around
this area that are well over a 10% grade, including the driveway directly across from ours.
Our driveway has now been asphalted, but through no fault of our own. The asphalt company and I had an
agreement they would not lay the asphalt with out contacting me first as I was waiting for the as built
survey, but they laid the asphalt before contacting me. The electric and the gas lines also run underneath
the driveway, which was a joint decision made by the utility companies and our general contractor. To
move the gas and electric lines, tear out the asphalt and change the natural topography of the land to meet
a 10% grade, would cause me great financial hardship and also cause drainage problems for this area.
Respectfully,
Timothy Tillotson
.~.~.~n ..'~- .' / .~ -
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
X variance
4"' ~
Non-conforming Use Permit
.Planned Unit Development*
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review* X
Notification Sign
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUPISPRIVACNAR/WAPIMetes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
applimalion.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2.. 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.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION /-- O"~' ~,
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
YES ~ NO
)/¥')5",
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST c~
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.
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 Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
t 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.
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
~ignature of Fee Owner
Application Received on
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.
Attachment 2
Sec. 20-1122. Access and driveways.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope
standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility
easements by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for
all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct
drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards.
Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The
number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and
abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria:
a. Driveways shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the side property lines,
beginning at twenty (20) feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment
agreement is received from the city.
b. Driveway grades shall be a minimum of one-half of one (0.5) percent and a
maximum grade of ten (10) percent at any point in the driveway.
c. In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified
on the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or
other hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. In areas outside the MUSA,
driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right-of-way
portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as
approved by the city engineer.
d. On corner lots, the minimum corner clearance from the roadway right-of-way line
shall be at least thirty (30) feet to the edge of the driveway.
e. For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not
exceed twenty-four (24) feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may
be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the
maximum driveway width shall not exceed thirty-six (36) feet. The minimum driveway
width shall not be less than ten (10) feet.
f. For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed thirty-six (36)
feet in width measured at the roadway right-of-way line. No portion of the fight-of-way
may be paved except that portion used for the driveway.
g. Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to the following criteria:
1. The driveway will not interfere with any existing easement; and
2. Shall require an easement encroachment agreement from the engineering
department; and
Attachment 2
3. The location of the driveway must be approved by the city engineer to ensure
that it will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties.
h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
i. A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or
collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where
this is deemed necessary by the city engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances,
street grades, or other relevant factors. If the engineer requires a turnaround, this
requirement will be stated on the building permit.
j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are pe~Tnitted.
(Ord. No. 117, § 1, 1-8-90; Ord. No. 330, § 1, 11-13-01)
Attachment 3
Sec. 7-21. As-built grading survey.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an as-built grading survey is required.
An as-built grading survey is defined as a lot survey showing the elevations of the lot
after construction of the building structure and prior to sodding the lot. In lieu of an as-
built grading survey, the building official may issue a certificate of occupancy provided
that a one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) escrow fee has been submitted. The
escrow fee shall be returned to the permit applicant, without interest, upon successful
completion and submission to the city of all of the following:
(1) An as-built grading survey, signed by a licensed engineer or land surveyor and
certified that the grades and elevations are in conformance with the city approved grading
plan and that permanent iron monuments are in place at each lot corner.
(2) City staff review of the submitted as-built grading survey to assure that all final
grades match the approved grading plan for the development, to within a tolerance of
+0.2 feet.
(Ord. No. 325, § i, 8-13-01)
Editor's note: Ord. No. 317, § 4, adopted April 23, 2001, repealed former § 7-21 which
pertained to certificate of occupancy. Subsequently, Ord. No. 325, § 1, adopted Aug. 31,
2001, added provisions designated as a new § 7-21 to read as herein set out. See the Code
Comparative Table.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL: Variance for a
Driveway Grade
APPLICANT: Timothy Tillotson
LOCATION' 6690 Deerwood Drive
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Timothy
Tillotson, is requesting a variance to the required driveway grade on property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family and located at 6690 Deer'wood Drive.
What Happens at the Meeting' The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
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 Matt at 227-1164. 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 October 2, 2002.
--__J
~)r
a ,Ur
£raooth Feed SheetsTM
RAMONA W BECKMAN
6670 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHA~N
C/O BRUCE D~.J-ONG
7700 M~T BLVDPO BOX 147
CHAN-FrASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160®
TIMOTHY W TILLOTS_J)N &
KRISTI R NO~~
78 KEL~
CHASKS~ MN 55318
ERNIE C & VIOLA E KEEFER
1 NEZ PERCE DR
MN 55317
DARIN W & ALLISON R GACHNE
6670 DEERWOOD DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERIC $ MEESTER
6610 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
J & KAREN A WOITALLA
NEZ PERCE DR
MN 55317
EVELYN A PRESTEMON
6680 DEERWOOD DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FEDERAL NATIONAL MTGE ASSN
1 S WACKER DR SUITE 3 I00
CHICAGO IL 60606
A BECKMAN &
R CONDON
686 HOPI RD
'HANttASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY W TILLOTSON &
KRISTI R NORMAN
78 KELLEY RD
CHASKA MN 55318
KEITH J & PATRICIA F GUNDERSON
6661 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
iRNIE C & VIOL?5-.E-K~'=FER
6S1 NEZ P/.E.R'C~ DR
It.:\Nd.HA5 SEN MN 55317
ELAINE C OTTERDAHL
6715 NqEZ PERCE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES
6680 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
R & TAMI L BR,-\IEDY
0 WESTERN DR
;EN \IN 55317
GARY JOHN OTTERDAHL
6691 DEERWOOD DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J & PAULA WEGLER
6630 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
W ALD
,79 HOPI RD
MN 55317
BLAISE A & KAY K WATSON
750 QUIVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
VEtLMONT H ISAACSON
6640 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
A & KIMBERLY ANDERSON
83 HOPI RD
tANHASSEN MN 55317
ROYAL & DORIS MARTIN
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
6650 PAWNEE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RYAN C & SANDRA L MOSLEY
6710 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
..&NK LIEBLE
3 ALBERT OTTERDAHL
15 NEZ PERCE DR
iANItASSEN MN 55317
d~IA PONO PEDEN
17 HOPI RD
ANHASSEN MN >>.>17
MICHAEL J UNGER
6687 DEERWOOD DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J.~,'.X?iES WEGLER
66.>0 M/OI-fAWK DR
CHA~HASSEN MN 55~17
MARTIN ALPERT &
SHELLY L V LAROSE
6711 NEZ PERCE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANIEL T RUTLEDGE
6711 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use.temptate for 5160®
WILLIAM HARLEY WOLFE &
SHARON BETH HANSON
6699 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PETER MICHAEL JACOBSON
6560 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS J & ANNE L TEGEN
6641 NEZ PERCE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JERROLD A & BARBARA KREISLER
764 LAKE PT
Ctt,~UNHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL L & REBECCA MCMILLEN
880 FOX CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD R & CANDACE L DECOSSE
860 VINELAND CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
NED & ANNE C TABAT
772 LAKE PT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JOSEPH tt & TAMARA SCHWARTZ
780 LAKE PT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES P & NANCY FORD HOOPES
6511 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CH,KRLES & REBECCA C CHUVA
6521 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KARI L LEDIN
840 VINELAND CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
RICH;U~.D JOSEPH HAJT &
NANCY ANNE HAJT
820 \;INELAND CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
t/.OBEP, T J DORAN
788 LAKE PT
C} 1.-\NHASSEN
NiN 55317
JAMES D HUDSON &
CAROLYN SUERTIt
6541 FOX PATH
CtlAN[tASSEN ~iN 55317
WILLIAM B & ELIZABETH MANNING
861 VINELAND CT
T
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOItN A & IRENE B OBI:~P, ST.,'d>,
796 LAKE PT
CIIANt-tASSEN ~XiN 55317
GREGG A & DIANE M ELLIOTT
6551 FOX PATH
CItANtlASSEN MN 55317
VITO & *iELANIE QUAGLIA
$81 VINELAND CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY J PORRITT &
C LYNN }:OX PORRITT
6510 FOX PATH
CHANItASSEN ~iN 55317
i'tlONiAS S & SHERYL A EBENREITER
TRUSTEES OF F:U\'IILY TRUST
653O FOX PATH
CH:\NHASSEN NiN 55317
\VILLIAM P JR & ANN K MILLER
6561 FOX PATH
CItANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL E & JEANNE M KLEIN
6571 FOX PATH
CHANttASSEN MN 55317
DOUGLAS M & DARLENE K OLSEN
901 VINELAND CT
CttANHASSEN MN 55317
PETER ELLENZ &
CAROLYN E PARE
6540 FOX PATH
CItANttASSEN
55317
JEFFREY D SCHNABEL &
DENISE D ROBERGE
6661 NEZ PERCE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICH/LRD R & NANCT J NIAP, TINO
6550 FOX PATH
CttANttASSEN NiX 55317
JOHN E LONGSTREET &
LAURI WALD
6650 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN YiN 55317