4 Variance 6800 Brule CircleCITY OF
PC DATE: 6/17/01
CC DATE: 7/13/01
REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/31/01
CASE#: 2001-2
By: Hoium, J
STAFF
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
REPORT
A request for a 4 foot and 2 foot variance from the required 10-foot side
yard setback for the construction of a three-season porch.
6800 Bmle Circle
Lot 14, Block 2, Lotus Lake Estates
Nicholas Gassman
6800 Bmle Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Residential Single Family
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density
ACREAGE:
12,998 square feet (.29 acres)
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a three-season porch on
the south side of an existing home. The proposal does not meet the required 10-foot side yard setback. -
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feel
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.
)'d uessequeq3
Gassman Variance
July 17, 2001
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Section 20-615 (5) (c) requires a 10-foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF, Single Family
Residential (Attachment 2).
Sec 20-615 (1) requires the minimum size of a lot to be 15,000 square feet.
BACKGROUND
This site is part of the Lotus Lake Estates subdivision, which was approved in 1979. The subject home
was constructed in the same year. Originally, this subdivision was approved as a P-l, Planned Unit
development. At the time of approval, the minimum lot size for a planned unit development was 11,700
square feet. This lot was conforming to these standards. Today, the official zoning map depicts this
subdivision as residential single family. Staff was unable to determine when or how the subdivision was
rezoned from P-1 to RSF.
The.subject site is a small irregular-shaped lot and the house is located in the center of the site. The
existing home is proportionate to the lot size. The home currently maintains approximately 20 and
22-foot setbacks from the side property line to the south. A small deck and whirlpool are located in
the center of the rear (west) side of the home. Records for the construction of the deck could not be
found.
The buildable area on this site is limited by topographical features. A boulder retaining wall, running
along the western property line, is located approximately 16 feet from the rear of the house. The
boulder wall is approximately 5 feet high. Directly behind this wall is an open wooded area.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 12-foot by 20-foot (240 sq. ft.) screen porch on the southern
elevation of an existing home. The proposed porch will be 6 feet from the property line on the
southwest comer and 8 feet from the property line on the souteast comer. The zoning ordinance
requires a porch to maintain a 10 foot setback from a side property line. -
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a variance to the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of
an enclosed porch addition. The southwest comer of the proposed porch extends 4 feet into the side
yard setback, and the southeast comer encroaches 2 feet into the side yard setback.
Site Characteristics
The lot has an area of 12,998 sq. fL As stated earlier, this lot is an odd shaped lot. The width of the
lot decreases as it moves in the direction of the rear yard. It is approximately 101 feet wide at the
front lot line and is less than 75 feet in the rear. The rear lot line is angled so that it is closer to the
home at the southwest comer than at the northwest comer (see site plan). At this point, the rear lot
line is approximately 42 feet from the southeast comer of the existing home. The buildable area is
limited by the required setbacks, the size and shape of the lot, and its natural landscape and
Gassman Variance
July 17,2001
Page 3
topography. The impervious surface coverage on this lot currently is approximately 23%. The
proposed porch will increase the impervious surface coverage to 25%, the maximum percent allowed
by the ordinance.
Permitted Use
This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. A single family home can be legally constructed
on the site. The zoning ordinance (Section 20-1124 (2) f) requires two parking spaces, both of which
shall be completely enclosed for single-family dwellings. Currently, a single family dwelling with a
two-stall garage is on site.
Reasonable Use
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 occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a
RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single-family home with a two-stall garage. The property
owner currently has a reasonable use of the site.
The applicant contends that an undue hardship is present because of the small, irregular shape of the
lot, its "unusual boundary line," the position of the current'home on the lot, and the natural
landscaping. The homeowner wishes to increase the enjoyment of the property, especially in a state
that has an abundance of mosquitoes. This lot is smaller than the 15,000 sq. ft, however, the size has
not precluded a single-family home from being constructed on the property.
Alternative
An alternative location on this site for the porch would be to the rear of the home. A 12 x 20 foot
porch in this location could just meet the rear setback requirement, however, due to the boulder wall
and rise in topography it would leave very little of the rear yard open.
The applicant could construct a porch without a variance that does meet the 10-foot side setback if the
porch was four feet shorter on the south side. To accommodate this the south side of the porch would
have to be 4 feet shorter, or have a dimension of 8 x 20 feet.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts'
ao
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
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
Gassman Variance
July 17, 2001
Page 4
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
b.
Co
d,
eo
Finding: The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. A single family home and
attached garage exist on the property. To the best of staff's knowledge all homes maintain the
required 10 foot side yard setback. A standard that complies with current ordinances. While
studying the surveys within 500 feet of the subject site, staff discovered that the property owner
at 6801 Brule Circle, located across the street from the subject site, encountered a similar
situation dealing with side setback requirements. The property owner obtained additional
property from the neighboring site, moving the property line administratively, thus eliminating
the need for a variance. The subsequent addition was built in accordance with city code.
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 10-foot side yard building setback is required on all residentially zoned properties.
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 screened porch will increase the value of the property, however, .staff does not
believe that is the sole reason for the request. A screened porch will allow the homeoWners
enjoy the property.
The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The hardship is self-created, as a reasonable use already exists on the site.
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 injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
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: Although the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, it will permit a setback that is less
than the minimum side yard separation found in this development.
Gassman Variance
July 17,2001
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission denies Variance #2001-2 for a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard
setback on the southwest comer of the proposed porch and a 2 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard
setback on the southeast comer of the same proposed porch based upon the following:
1. The applicant has a reasonable use the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship."
Attachments
1. Application and Letter
2. Relevant portions of the zoning ordinance
3. Site Plan, porch plans, and pictures
4. Public hearing notice and property owners
5. Letters from Neighbors
g:kplan\j h~proj ects\variance\gassman01 -.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE: ~,T-c~- C~ 3~/"- ~/0 P
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
interim Use Permit
Non-conferming Use Permit
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review* X
Subdivision*
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/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.
~'wenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'' X 11" reduced copy of
Iransparency 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.-
Request for Variance
Lotus Lake Estates; Lot 14; 6800 Brule Circle
Description
This formal request for variance is based on the property owners desire to realize the full enjoyment
and use of the current home and property. The proposed screen porch is within the existing plotted
property boundary lines. However, because of the unusual angle of the boundary l/ne and the
positioning of the current home on the lot, (See Plot Map) the southeast comer of the structure will
enter the 10foot easement by approximately 2 feet and the southwest comer by approximately 4
feet.
Logic
The logic for the location and placement of the screen porch is as follows:
Visual Harmony and Aesthetics - the elevation of the property, significant distance in
proximity of adjacent neighbors homes and the extensive shrubbery will allow the screen
porch to be integrated into the current home with minimal visual impact. (See Building
Elevation Diagram and Pictures # 1, 2, 3, 7)
· Excavation - locating the porch to the west (backyard) would require the removal of natural
landscaping, significant grading and dirt work. In additio~ there are numerous large, old
growth trees that would be jeopardized or may need to be removed. (See Pictures #4, 5)
· Light and Egress - The South side of the dwelling has no windows or egress on the first
level. The French door to be installed will provide light and access to the porch and outside.
(See Building Plan Diagram and Pictures #3, 6).
· Property Limitations - The North side (garage) and the East side of the property are not
functional options due to lot line proximity, physical limitations of the current dwelling and
visible appeal.
Justification
As a resident and taxpayer of Chanhassen at this address for over fourteen years, the homeowner
wishes to increase the pleasure of the home and the property by building a screen porch. The
homeowner understands, appreciates and respects the local code and the enforcement with regards
to the granting of variances. In this particular case, the literal and strict enforcement would cause
the property owner undo and unnecessary hardship. The proposed structure will not in anyway be
detrimental to the public welfare or the aesthetics of the neighborhood. The request is for the
specific and sole purpose of enjoying the property, not for the purpose of increasing the property's
value. As evidenced by Picture/ti, the location of the screen porch will not impair adequate light or
air to the adjacent property and in no way increase congestion, or diminish property values within
the neighborhood.
Letters by neighbors immediately adjacent to the lot line (Lot 15 & Lot 16) in support of granting
and approval of the variance are respectfully submitted. Please see Exlm~bk A.
.
LO0~ L L Inl~ '~epseupe~
00~ OOg 00[ 0
Isabel m
SlOl
°~edx~lI I
~lO~lO ~lnaa 0089
I.'1. JeJoldx~oJv IEIS~
ZONING § 20-615
(2) Storage building.
(3) Sv~mraing pool.
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses.
The following are conc[itional uses in an "RSF" District:
Churches.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, A~. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12,
11-12-96)
State law reference--Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in tkis chapter and chapter 18:
(1)
The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots,
the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has
been excluded from consideration.
(2)
The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac
"bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90)
feet in width at the building setback line. The location of tkis lot is conceptually
No. 9 1211
§ 20-615
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
illustrated below.
Lot8 Where Frontage la
Measured At 8etbaok Line
(3)
The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots
is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots-accessed by
_
private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as-measured at the front building
.
setback line. · -
&ieck I Flag Lots
Fron: Lot Line
lO0/Lot
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)
percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
Supp. No. 9 1212
Plot Plan %
Lores Lake Estates; Lot 14; 6800 Bmle CircleCX% %,,
,/
line is approx
feet '
Dis~ from
appro~ 8 f~
)istance fi.om SW
, comer to property '
Z
Picture Number One
View is looking Northwest fi.om the backyard of Paul Dragston (Lot 15).
Picture Number Two
View is looking North showing lower elevation from Paul Dragston's yard.
Picture Number Three
View is looking Northwest from the property line showing south side of the dwelling and
building site.
/
Picture Number Four
View is looking Southeast showing top elevation, landscaping and shrubbery.
Picture Number Five
View is looking West showing mature trees, extensive landscaping, and building site.
Picture Number Six
View is looking East showing the dwellings south wall and building site.
Picture Number Seven
View is looking West showing building site and extensive shrubbery.
I!
I1'
ELEVATION
50ALF:: I/4"---i'L¢-
EXI~TIN® ~ALL
'//////////~ //~/////¢?/////¢'///~
NEi~ ~' FRENCH /'
DOOR
4 X 4POST ~.
SCRFFN PORCH "'"' :
12,o X20,o
2 X 6 CEDAR DECKING
I,,t,/SCREEN UNDER DECKING
4X 6 X 6 POST
4 POST ~
~1'~1 ~, ii
..
/
I
I
LINE OF
OVEI~HAN®
1__011
PL
AN
c-,~ALE:
HEATHER ®UARD
2 X 4 LOOKOUT
] X D TRIM 2. X ~ I~FTER
.
I X ~ T~IH I X 6 T ~ ~
2 X 12 BEAM
~/8" PLYWOOD
4 X 4 CEDAR POST
((:2 X (2 CEDAR CORNER POST)
2 X 12 CEDAR TRIM
2 X 4 RAIL
2 X 5 DECKIN®
· ! £ ''" I''" --' · ''' ''~ '~'l
i_-- ~1----I~I..-,, '~--- ---
!---_ ----I~_11-z ..-'di=l- _= =_
~ ~11 ~ I-_-lie -, II-IB-I-il',-
!1 !--- I----l I!---_-- I ~ .---- ~ll_---! I=
--I I I--I I I~I I I--I l I--I I l~l I l~l I l~l I t--I 1
SECTION
2 X 12 FLOOR JOIST
6 X (:2 POST
,,//'-- ®RAPE
12" DIA. CONG.
FOOTIN®
I~" DIA. CONC.
FOOTIN®
, ,' ,~ EXI~TIN® I, NALL
II Ii' i'l .... I~ ii II ........ II ....... II II ...... II II 11 II '11 ...... 11 II
II II II II II ~ - ~l
II II II II II II 12'0X20'O II
II II ~ ~ ~ ~ II II .11 II II II II I1' II II
II il' -~8'" DIA. (_.,ON,,(..,. II II ' II II II II II II II II
II/11 FOOTIN® 42 DEEP NIN. II
~, ,, ,, I, I~ ,, ,I ~ II II II II ~11 II
I1! II II II II II II II.....11 II II II II II I~ II
,'l.C,._,~ ~ _ ,,_ _,,_. ,, ,!_ ,, ,r_ .¥_ _11_ ~ ~~_ j~ _ ~'~ ~
===---:
2-2 X 12 DEAN
q'-q"
/
'
2 X I0 -lb" 0.~.
· II
II
FOOTING PLAN
SCALE: I/~I.'' = I'-0"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 City Center Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a side yard
setback for the construction of a screened porch on property zoned RSF, and located at 6800 Brule
Circle, Nick Gassman.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Julie Hoium, Planner I
Phone: 937-1900, ext. 117
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 5,2001)
May 23, 2001
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the application for a building variance submitted by Nick
Gassman. I live in the adjoining property (30 Choctaw Circle, lot #15). The proposed
screened porch will be situated directly between our properties. I have discussed this
project with Mr. Gassman, have no objections to the proposed addition to his house,
and support his efforts to obtain approval for the project.
If you have additional questions you wish to address to me, please do not hesitate to
contact me directly at (612) 378-0228 (work) or (952) 949-1260 (home).
Sincerely,
30 Choctaw Circle
Charthassen, MN 55317
Thomas & Mary Lauby
50 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
(952) 937-5265
To the City of Chanhassen
To whom it my concern,
This letter is in support of the variance application submitted by
Nick Gassman. We live on.the adjoining property, next to Mr.D~ag~ten,
whom lives at 30 Choctaw Ct, and to the rear of Mr. Gassman. We have
no objections to the building proposal in regard to the addition
to his home.
You may contact me at the number above if you have any questions
as & Mary Lauby