The URL can be used to link to this page

1 SUB 7303 Laredo DriveCITY OF PC DATE: 6/6/00 CC DATE: 6/26/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 6/20/00 City extension permitted to 8/19/00 STAFF REPORT By: RG, DH PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for preliminary plat with a variance to lakeshore width requirement to subdivide a 1.1 ac. re lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Lucas Igel Addition Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive David and Rachael Igel 6195 Strawberry Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 (952) 920-8300 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units/acre) ACREAGE: DENSITY: 1.09 acres (47,501 sq. ft.) 1.83 units per acre, gross and net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval received on April 21, 2000, to create two lakeshore lots with a variance to the lakeshore width requirement. Lot areas are 27,159 square feet and. 20,342 square feet. These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway. The.existing house on the site will be razed to accommodate the two new houses. ": '~ 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 preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision. .,,Ka Dr Lotus Lake Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 2 The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation fi'om established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the subdivision of a lot into two lots. The proposed lots meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but not the requirement for lakeshore frontage. The lots also continue the pattern of lot and house placement along the street. The applicant is, therefore, requesting a variance from the lakeshore width requirement. The applicant has also prepared a plan that demonstrates that they could subdivide the property in a manner that complies with all elements of the zoning ordinance. However, this alternate also has significant visual impacts on the neighborhood. Staff has reviewed the properties around Lotus Lake and discovered that 55 lots have lakeshore widths less than 90 feet. The smallest of these lots had a lakeshore width of 47.27 feet as shown on the plat. Interestingly, a lot in the Sunrise Hills subdivision in which this property is located has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). At least three of the properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the shoreland management district regulations. Staff has also looked at the size of lots in the area to determine if lots are in fact larger in this neighborhood than elsewhere in the community. The lots in the Sum'ise Hills 1st Addition range in size from 13,846.38 to 47,127.09 square feet based on GIS calculations. The average lot area in this development is 18,992.65 square feet. The proposed development has lot areas of 27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot area for RSF zoned property is 15,000 square feet and for lakeshore property is 20,000 square feet. Adjacent zoning and land uses are N - RSF, single family home, S - RSF, single family homes, W - RSF, single family homes, and E - Lotus Lake. Water and sewer are available to the property and currently connected to the existing house. The site slopes from west to east with a high point at I .aredo Drive of 940 and a low point at the lake at 896.3 (the Ordinary High Water elevation of the Lake). The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose using the existing blacktop driveway for common access and the driveways split approximately 70 down the lot with a new driveway constructed for both lots. The site has approximately 77 percent canopy coverage. The ultimate canopy cover will be 69 percent. Code requires a minimum canopy coverage of 55 percent. The existing house on the site has a basement elevation of 914.4. The proposed houses have lowest floor elevations of 913.5 and 911.0 on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. (Lot 1 is the proposed northerly lot and Lot 2 is the proposed southerly lot.) The proposed lots are 27,159 and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot size for shoreland property is 20,000 square feet. The proposed lots meet all requirements for subdivision except for the 90 feet of shoreland frontage. The applicant has also prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore property. While Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 3 this plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight percent to 22 percent of the site. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternate would stack the houses, altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-h-vis the applicant's preferred plan. The neighbors have provided the city with a copy of restrictive covenants for Sunrise Hills First Addition. Item number 18 appears to prohibit the applicant from subdividing the parcel. However, the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. Rather, it is our responsibility to review the proposed development for compliance with City Ordinances. Additionally, the applicant stated that the restrictive covenants expired in 1987 and that they are no longer applicable to this lot. Subject to the revisions contained in this report, staff believes that the benefits of approving a variance exceed the potential negative impacts of the alternative plat, which complies with City Ordinance, and is, therefore, recommending the subdivision and variance for approval. BACKGROUND In 1956, the Town Board of Chanhassen approved the plat for Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition. On December 19, 1956, the Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition was accepted and approved by the County Board of Carver County. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2000, to review the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission voted four for and none against a motion recommending approval of the subdivision based on staff's interpretation that 75 feet of shoreland was required. Upon discovery of this error, staff notified the applicant that we could not support the subdivision because it did not meet code and no variance was requested as part of the public hearing process. The application was withdrawn to pursue a subdivision with the appropriate variance request. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Igel Addition development are as follows: Total upland area Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation Proposed tree preservation 47,501 SF or 1.091 ac. 77% or 36,576 SF 55% or 26,126 SF 69% or 32,776 SF (with variance) 55% or 26,126 SF (alternative) The developer meets minimum canopy coverage, therefore no replacement plantings are required. Existing vegetation serves as appropriate buffer yard plantings for most of the development. There had been some question regarding trees that were shown on the plans as dead or diseased. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 4 The City Forester inspected the site on May 22nd. The oaks identified as diseased have dead wood in their canopies, but they are not diseased and do not merit removal since they are healthy. The dead ash is indeed dead. Staff recommends that plantings be added to the area directly north of the proposed home on Lot 1. This area is currently paved driveway and will become yard for the proposed home. Assuming a 10' x 100' buffer yard, minimum requirements include one overstory tree, 2 understory trees and three shrubs. GRADING/DRAINAGE There is an existing home on the lot that is to be razed for redevelopment. Grading plans propose fairly minor grading to develop two new house pads. Both lots are proposed to be two- story rambler, walkout-type dwellings. Grading around the dwelling will encroach upon the 75- toot setback from the lake, however; only minimal tree loss is anticipated with this grading activity. This grading activity is necessary to maintain positive drainage away from the proposed dwelling. At time of building permit application, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required with each lot. At that time, staff will address erosion control measures necessary with individual permits. The site contains an existing blacktop driveway that currently serves the existing residence. The plans propose on constructing a new driveway through Lot 2 to service both of the new parcels. Upon review of the driveway layout, staff reCommends that due to the steep driveway grades, Lot 1 should utilize the existing blacktop driveway and Lot 2 should have a new driveway as shown. This will reduce the common portion of the driveway which needs to be built 20 feet wide, 7-ton per axle design through the common portion. A cross-access easement for both lots will need to be prepared and recorded for the common portion of the driveway through Lot 2. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing house is connected to city sewer and water. In conjunction with razing of the existing dwelling, the appropriate demolition permits will be required. The parcel has been previously assessed for one sewer and water unit, therefore, the newly created lot will be responsible at time of building permit issuance for one sewer and water hookup and connection charge. The 2000 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are $4,075 each and the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain hookup charges are $1,300 and $1,694, respectively. These fees may be specially assessed against the property at time of building permit issuance. Extension of sanitary sewer service to Lot 2 will involve encroaching upon Lot 1. The applicant will need to prepare private cross-access easements for extension of the sewer and water lines through Lot 2 to be recorded against both parcels. Currently, one water service exists for the existing building. A new water service will need to come from Laredo Lane to the property line to service Lot 2. This will involve open cutting of Laredo Lane to tap the existing watermain. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 1. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. Staff recommends the applicant escrow with the City $2,000 to guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 5 STREETS The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose using the driveway to service both lots. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. COMPLIANCE TABLE AREA (scl.: fl.) FRONTAGE (fl.) DEPTH Lake Frontage (fi.) Code Requirements 20,000 90 125 90 Lot 1 27,159 90 278 75 # Lot 2 20,342 100 * 397 75 # Total 47,501 Alternate Lot 1 21,752 90 155 Not applicable Alternate Lot 2 25,749 190.21 137.8 150 Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the front building setback. A 15 foot lake front variance is being requested. Minimum state shoreland standards are 75 feet. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District subject to approval of the shoreland width variance. The alternate plat complies with all code requirements. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans. o The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 6 The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7, The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: ao Lack of adequate storm water drainage: Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not Lucaslgel Addition June 6,2000 Page 7 necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. In order to preserve the trees in the western portion of Lots 1 and 2, the use of the existing driveway on Lot 1, in its present configuration, is appropriate. The use ora public street is impractical. SUBDIVSION VARIANCE FINDINGS Section 18-22, Variances, states: The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape topographical conditions of the land; (3) The condition or conditions upon which the variance is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and (4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding. The proposed variance to the shoreland width is not a mere inconvenience, rather it is a mechanism to reduce the potential impacts of the addition of the new lot to the neighborhood by preselwing the trees along the western property line, maintaining the character of the area by pushing the houses away from the right-of-way, and maintaining off site views of the lake. The proposed variance is generally in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. VARIANCE 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 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 from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship. The topography of the site, the desire to preserve the natural amenities on the property and the wish to preserve the character of the area make the granting of the variance more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Approving the variance will not depart downward from pre-existing standards since the lot size is Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 8 consistent with other lots in the area and another lot within the Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition has lakeshore frontage that is even less than that proposed in this subdivision. 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 not applicable to all properties in the shore land management district. The desire to preserve natural amenities on the site, the enhancement of lake views, the desire to maintain the lot patterning of the neighborhood are unique to this development proposal. Co The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: While the creation of lakeshore lots will increase the value of the property, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. do The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The difficulty in meeting the ordinance is due to the lot configuration which meets ordinance requirements in area, depth, frontage, "lot width," but not lakeshore width. 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 not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the ordinance would be more detrimental to the neighborhood. 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. Requiring the subdivision to meet all requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for the crowding of houses near the cul-de-sac. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 9 "The Planning Commission approves the preliminary plat with a variance to the shoreland width requirement, Subdivision #00-2, for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, and revised April 20, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat. 2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate department or agency. 3. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. 4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. o A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading. All 10ts shall maintain the r~eighborhood drainage pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit Certificate of Survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance may also be required at Laredo Lane. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sanitary sewer services through Lot 1 to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the City $3,500 to guarantee the water and sanitary sewer service extension across LOt 1 to serve Lot 2. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on Lot 2. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 2 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 2. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that encroach upon the lots. The typical 5-foot and 1 O-feet wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 1. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 10 The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, Park and Trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 10. All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7-ton axle weight design. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide. 11. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 1. 12. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. 13. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over the property westerly of the access easement alignment." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen Dated March 3, 2000 4. Letter fi'om Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated March 28, 2000 5 Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 3, 2000 6. Letter fi'om Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 6, 2000 7. Letter from Adolfo R. Zambrano dated April 17, 2000 8. Letter fi'om David Igel dated April 21, 2000 9. Letter from Norbert Kerber dated 5/01/2000 10. Letter from Chris Baird dated May 7, 2000 11. Letter from Gerald W. Paulsen dated May 8, 2000 12. Letter fi'om Debbie Lloyd dated May 9, 2000 13. Letter from Bruce D. Malkerson dated May 9, 2000 14. Map of Lakeshore Lots Less Than 90 Feet in Width at Lake 15. Sunrise Hills 1st Addition Lot Areas 16. Memo From Jill Sinclair to Kate Aanenson dated 5/25/00 17. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Lucas Igel Addition Subdivision On June 6, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule lneeting to consider the application of David Igel for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from 'all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zonedRSF, Single Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: mo co The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Lucaslgel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 12 The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and go The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) 2) 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 1. The planning report #00-2 dated June 6, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. In order to preserve the trees in the western portion of Lots 1 and 2, the use of the existing driveway on Lot 1, in its present configuration, is appropriate. The use of a public street is impractical. Section 18-22, Variances, states: The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: Lucas/gel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 13 (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape topographical conditions of the land; (3) The condition or conditions upon which the variance is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and (4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The proposed variance to the shore land width is not a mere inconvenience, rather it is a mechanism to reduce the potential impacts of the addition of the new lot to the neighborhood by preserving the trees along the western property line, maintaining the character of the area by pushing the houses away from the right-of-way, and maintaining off-site views of the lake. The proposed variance is generally in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Section 20-58, General Conditions For Granting, states: A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: That the literal enforcement of this chapter ~vould cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means 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 five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. FindinR: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship. The topography of the site, the desire to preserve the natural amenities on the property and the wish to preserve the character of the area make the granting of the variance more desirable than requiriug the applicant to meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. The literal enforcement of this chapter would negatively impact the property and the neighborhood. The applicant has prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore property. While this plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight (8) percent to twenty-two (22) percent of the site. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternative would stack the houses, altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-a-vis the applicant's preferred plan. Staff has reviewed the properties around Lotus Lake and discovered that fifty-five (55) lots have lakeshore widths less than 90 feet. The smallest of these lots had a lakeshore Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 14 width of 47.27 feet as shown on the plat. In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hills subdivision, in which this property is located, has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). At least three of the properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the shore land management district regulations. The average lot area in this development is 18,992.65 square feet, whereas the proposed development has lot areas of 27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot area for RSF zoned property is 15,000 square feet and for lakeshore property is 20,000 square feet. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding. In evaluating the other lots in the zoning classification, this lot is unique because the existing housing pattern is set and the existing house on the property blocks the house to the southeast from a lake view. The desire to preserve natural amenities on the site, the enhancement of lake views, the desire to maintain the lot patterning of the neighborhood are unique to this development proposal. If the lots were stacked, the internal lot would eliminate almost all of the views of the lake vis-fi-vis the applicant's preferred plan. - 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding. According to the applicant, the variance request is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the property, but instead is requested to create two lakeshore lots to allow the best use of the property in a way that blends with the neighborhood's pre-existing standards and does not depart downward from them. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findinl~. The applicant has not created a hardship that would result from the literal enforcement of the City Code. The difficulty in meeting the ordinance is due to the lot configuration which meets ordinance requirements in area, depth, frontage, "lot width", but not lakeshore width. The applicant has prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore property. While this plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight (8) percent to twenty-two (22) percent of the site. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternative would stack the houses, altering the pattern of development along the street. In addition, the two proposed houses would eliminate ahnost all views of the lake, vis-fi-vis the applicant's preferred plan. Finally, fifty-five (55) lots around Lotus Lake have lakeshore widths less than 90 feet. At least three properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the shore land management district regulations. These lots Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 15 all meet the 75 foot lakeshore lot width. In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition subdivision, in which this property is located, has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). 5. That 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 of land is located. Findim,. 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. Requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the ordinance would be more detrimental to the neighborhood. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental because the proposed lots will be consistent with the surrounding lots in the area. The proposed lots continue the pattern of lot and house placement along the street and the building pads will be barely be visible from the street. o 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. Requiring the subdivision to meet all requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for the crowding of houses near the cul-de-sac. The proposed lots allow for ample space between the proposed homes and the surrounding neighbors. The proposed lots continue the pattern of lot and house placement along the street and the building pads will be barely visible from the street. The surrounding infrastructure will be adequate for the proposed lot development. The prOposed lots will not adversely affect property evaluations in the neighborhood because the proposed lots are consistent to lots for neighboring homes. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with the shoreland width variance. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of June, 2000. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Page 16 ATTEST: Secretary g:\pltm\l~g\lucas ig¢l addition revised,doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman CiTY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHA58EN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TELEPHONE (Day time) OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Condftfonal Use Permit Interim Use Permit Vacatfon of ROW/Easements Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* ... Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review ._~ Notification Sign Site Plan Review* Subdivision* ,X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ '-~._~' O ' ~~,~-~ 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 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 TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST L YES ~ NO 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 1 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. 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. ~ure of Applicant~"'"-./~ Sign-'~u~e of Fee On~ Application Received on Z-If- oo Date 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, 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 March 3, 2000 2000 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Replat of property at 7303 Laredo Drive We live adjacent to the subject property that was recently purchased. We have been told that your meeting on March t5th has an agenda item to permit subdividing the single lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (previously owned by the Bairds) into two lots. We wish to express our concern and objection to this change, and call your attention to the following factors. Our subdivision, Sunrise Hills, has Restriction Covenants filed with Carver County. One of these items prohibits reducing the size of any building site from the established size. A copy of the Restrictive Covenants is attached. It seems strange that ~the purchaser of the Baird property claims not to be aware of the Restrictive Covenants. It is normally revealed by a title search. Our Mortgage Deed explicitly states our property is "Subject to Restrictive Covenants of record dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957 under document No. 6183". These Restrictive Covenants, which apply to 60 Sunrise Hills residences, have already been upheld in a legal ruling in the 1980's. Your rejection of this application will avoid protracted legal action to reconfirm the validity of the Restrictive Covenants. Adding another residence would adversely affect our property and that of ten or more adjacent properties because of visual impact resulting from two houses in the place of one, and because of the loss of mature trees. Adding another lake shore residence will further overload the capacity of Lotus Lake and contribute to it's environmental and visual degradation. Cordially, '/Gerald W. Paulsen Janet Dee Paulsen Attachment: Restrictive Covenants (3 pages) ~RF~ T RICTIVE COVENA.~S TO TI~ PUBLI¢~ WHEREAS, JTobort A. Seholer and Celine N. Scholer, husband and wife, are owuers of the property duly platted as "Sunrioe Hills First Addition", Carver County, M~nnesota, accordinE to the plat thereof on file ar~ of record in the office of tho Registrar of ~ltles of said Carver County; and %~HE~EAS. it is the intention and desire of said owners to assure the permanency of said Addition and tho stability of the property values t~erein; and %MtE~EAS. it is the further desire of said o~uers to establish restrictions for the ~utual benefit of ~esent and future ~wners of property included in said Sunrise Hills First Addition, N~ THEREFORE, in order to effectuate the foregoing, ~obert A, Scheler and Celine R. Scholer do hereby pro~algute and adept the following provisions, covenants and restrictions and 'do hereby make said covenants and restrictions a part and condition of each and every sale, transfer, conveyance or mortgase of said Addition or any part or lot therein; and said covenants a~/ restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding on all ~art£es ~reto and on all persons c!a~ing under them until July l, 1987, at ~4~lch time these covenants shall be auto~tically ex~ended for successive periods of ten years, unless by ~ vote of a majority of the then owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills'First Addition, it is agree~ to chan~e said covenants and restrictions in full or in part, Invalidation of any of these covenan~ and restrictions hereinafter set forth by Judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of tho other covenants, restrictions or provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 1. All let~ shall be know~ used and described as residential lo~. No structure shall be e~ecbed, altered, placed o~ permitted to re~=in on any lot in saD/ plat other than one detached single-family dwollinE not to exceed two stories in hoighth with attached p~'iPate garage, except as hereafter provided. 2, All garages must be within th~ dwelling or attached to the dwellin~ either directly or by breezeway or other part of dwelling. w~tch 3. No shed, shops or out buildings of any kind/may be considered unsi~htly or objoet.~onable to other residoat,.~ of said Addition, may be erected at any time, ~hl$ routrlcbiou, ho~c~er, shall n~t preclude ~/~e construction of sightly or ~tt~'aebive structures for tho comfort er onJo~a~ent of owaurs of the dwelling and hi.- family, including such =t:~ctures as non-commercial family ~reanheuaea, playhouses and children's play oquipment~ 4. No structure .of a temporary character shall be used as a residon~e at any time. 5. All buildings hereafter proposed for said Sunrise l[ills ~'ir~t Addition . must be erected by ~obert A. Scholar or his assigns, . 6. No building shall be located nearer than forty feet from ~he front Lot 7. 8. No building shall be closer to side lot lines than twelve feet. 'l%e minimum square foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway, or porches, of any 0ne-sto~y dwelling shall be 1,000 square feet, and of any one and one-half and two story d~elling shall be 1,200 square feet, and in case of the latter, both floors must be finished, The minimum square foot area, ex¢lusiv~ of garage and breezeway, or porches, of any dwelling located on a lot with lake- shore frontage shall bo 1,200 square.feet. 9. '~he exterior of any dwelling placed on any lot in said Addition shall be covered with stone, wood, brick or stucco; and all exterior woodwork must be painted, varnished or stained. The exterior of any dwelling must be finished immediately and must not be allowed to remain unfinished in any part for m~re than six months from the date of the beginning of said construction. 10. No building shall be constructed of concrete blocks or of einde~ block construction. 11. ~o second hand materials may be used for any construction. 12. No building may be moved onto any lot. 13. ~'o dog~ shall be kept in said Addition except those confined strictly to the owner's property and kept on leash or in control of the owner at all times. Dogs which are habitually noisy shall be doomed a nuisance and may be eliminated from the area. 14. No cows, goats, or any domestic or other animal, poultry or f~l of any hind shall bo kept in said Addition except dogs and cats, ard thc keeping of dogs shall bo subject to regulation set forth in tho proceeding paragraph. 15. No commercial activity of any kind shall be undertaken and carried o,{ upo~m ~)Y lot in said Addition. but thi~ rostrictkon oha~l not ~=~ku,~ o~ hobbies which are whol~ ~o~ed with~ the dwell~g pursuit o~ensive or of'a ki~d which ~ ~ w~y bec~em ~ a~oy~ce or hUla.ce the neighborhood. 16. ~ach owner of any lot shall have tho rich% to use the playground a~ea, provided by the above named ~obert A. Scholer mud Celine g. Scholer for the benefit *f pmrchasers of lots in said Addition, for access to and from Lotus Lake by foot. Use of boat slips and channel shall be subject to nominal charge for installation, maintenance and upkeep thereof. No private docks shall be erected on or from the area playground and beach. No buildings shall be erected on the area playground and beach without the permission of aobert A. Sc]~oler. Any and all mainteaance and improvement of and on said area playground and beach shall be made at the expense of the owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills First Add, ion. 17. , Landscaping of any lot on which a dwelling has been constructed shall be completed forthwith upon completion of dwelling construc.tion. 18. Robert A. Scholar reserves the right and privilege to regrade any of said lots owned by him and improve the s~me by enlarging said lets by consolidating two or more lots or any part of any lots, but in no event to reduce tho size of final building sites from the sizes of lots now es~ablished. IN TESTI~ONY WHEHEOF, ~obert A. Scholer and Celine R.~ Scholer have set their hands this day of June, 1957. ~otary P~b~'ic In Presence of~ / STATE OF ~[INN~;SOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF i '[E~NEPIN) On this .'~/.,.7~day of June, 1957, before me a Sotnry Public within and for said County personally appeared Robert A. Scholer and Celine R. Scholer, husband and wife, to mo known to be the persons described in, and who executed the forcsoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed for the purposes and objectives therein set forth. 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 March 28, 2000 Craig Peterson Chair, Chanhassen Planning Commission 1340 Oakside Circle Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB The Planning Commission had a public hearing on March 15th to discuss splitting this lot on LOtus Lake into two lots. The City Staff Report said the proposed development complied with City Ordinances and recommended approval. The four Planning Commission members present voted to recommend approval to the City Council. We have been told this item will be on the April 24th City Council agenda. We have searched City Code for lake shore requirements, and found what appears to be a significant oversight by City Staff. We believe the code states that the minimum lake shore lot width is 90 feet, measured at the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level; not 75 feet, measured at the survey line as stated in the Staff Report. The Code we are citing is Chapter 20 (Zoning), Article VII (Shoreline Management District): Sec. 20-479 (Shoreline classification system and land use districts) classifies Lotus as a Recreational Development Lake. Sec. 20-480 defines lot area and lot width standards. For a Sewered lakem Recreational development, Riparian Lots, Single residential lot, the requirements are: Area 20,000 ft2, Width 90 ft. Subsection (4) further states: "Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line.". The Staff Report (p. 4) states that code requires a minimum of 75 feet Lot Frontage, measured at the survey line. The report states the survey line measurement for the lot is 152.97 feet, and therefore adequate for two lots. On Friday, March 17th, we asked Kathryn Aanenson, whether the lot width should be measured at the ©HW level instead of the survey line, and she agreed it should be. She said the developer, David Igel, would be notified, and told to contact his surveyor to determine the lot width at the OHW level. As of today the surveyor has not formally replied to the City about the lot width. Bob Generous, assured me on Friday, March 24th that the surveyor had verbally said the lot width was adequate. We are not even convinced that the lot is 150 feet wide at the OHW level because the property lines converge toward the lake. We measured the lot width at the OHW level to be several feet less than the width at the survey line. We believe that the lot width requirement has to be resolved before the Planning Commission recommends action to the City. A primary reason for us and 40 other homes in Sunrise Hills opposing the splitting of the lot is because adding another lake shore home on Lotus Lake will be detrimental to the quality of the lake. Lotus is a small, shallow, fragile lake which is already overtaxed with traffic. It is an important asset of the community that should be protected. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 e-mail paulseng@juno.com Janet D. Paulsen Copy: Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Planning Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission Craig Peterson, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director Bob Generous, Senior Planner Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Council Member Mark Senn, Council Member Steve Labatt, Council Member Linda Jansen, Council Member Roger Knutson, City Attorney 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 April 3, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 6620 Galpin Blvd Excelsior MN 55331 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB The letter, dated March 30, from Bob Generous, Senior Planner, to David Igel regarding a change in interpretation of City Ordinance raises more questions. Issue # 1, lot width as related to zoning: Bob's interpretation of Sec. 20-480, subsection (4) (Shoreland Management, Additional special provisions) is predicated on his interpretation that all three sentences pertain to PUDR zoning, because sentence #l references PUDR. We believe the intent of this code is that these three sentences are separate provisions, and sentences #2 and #3 are independent of PUDR. Sentence #2 states "Only land above the ordinary high water (OHW) level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line.". If sentence #2 applies only to PUDR, where in city code is there a definition for determining lakeshore lot area for non PUDR zoning? This contradicts the intent of PUDR to have less stringent requirements than SFR. Sec. 20-50l (Intent) states "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility...through the relaxation of most normal district standards.". Sentence #3 of 20-480, states '~Fhe sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property.". Can this be interpreted to be applicable only to PUDR, and not specifically to all shoreland? Any reference to OHW level is logically related to Shoreline Management regardless of zoning. If the city believes 20-480, subsection (4) relates solely to PUDR, then both lots require 90 feet at the OHW level. The preliminary plat states zoning is PUDR (as does the developer's application). Conclusion: the preliminary plat was erroneously approved. Issue #2, building height: Sec. 20-481 (Placement, design, and height of structures), subsection (f) (Height of structures) defines maximum home height as 35 feet. The MN DNR publication "A Guide for Buying and Managing Shoreland" in the section titled "Shoreland Management Program", states that building height is limited to 25 feet in city residential districts. The preliminary plat defines both houses as two-story, Conclusion: ifa two-story house exceeds 25 feet in height, the preliminary plat was erroneously approved. City code exceeds the state's 25 foot mininum Issue #3, lot area as related to impervious surface: Sec. 20-485 (Storm water management) states impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. Lot area (defined in Sec. 20-1) excludes area occupied by street rights-of-way. A private street (defined in Sec. 18-1) is a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land.., owned by one or more private parties. Since both lots are accessed by a private street, the area occupied by the right-of-way must be excluded from the total lot area for the purpose of determining whether the impervious surface requirement is met. The corresponding adjusted lot area data should be included on the preliminary plat. Other inconsistencies lead us question the integrity of the Staff Report: The preliminary plat omits required data as defined in Sec. 18-40 (Preliminary plat--Data required): Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision are not provided (per subsectiou (2) (b)). · Lot dimensions exclude lot width at the OHW line (per subsection (2) (c)). The plat defines square footage as total area above the OHW elevation. Therefore the surveyor knows the lot width at the OHW line. The city requested the lot width at the OHW line on March 17, but we were told by Bob that the developer has not formally responded. · Adjoining platted or subdivided land is not identified by name and ownership (per subsection (2) (e)). In sunmxary, Sec. 20-4. (Compliance) states "...no building permit shall be granted and no plat approved that does not conform to the requirements of this chapter.". The city admits to "misinterpreting" city code. Local code must adhere to state minimum shoreland requirements, but can define stricter requirements. What criteria are used to decide when a revised preliminary plat must go back through the Planning Conmfission for public hearing and approval? We wish to see an interpretation of these issues from the city attorney. If these issues cannot be resolved in a timely manner for our review prior to the scheduled City Council meeting on April 24 (or Planning Commission meeting if appropriate), then the issue should be moved to a subsequent meeting. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 0mine) (651) 456-7784 (office) e-mail paulseng~jmm.com Janet D. Paulsen Copy: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Scott Botcher, City Manager Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Council Member Mark Senn, Council Member Steve Labatt, Cotmcil Member Linda Jansen, Council Member Roger l~mtson, City Attorney Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Plarming Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission Craig Peterson, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Therese Berquist, President, Sunrise Hills Civic Association* 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 April 6, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff.Report: Case # 00-2 SUB In our letter of April 3rd to you we questioned the city's interpretation of the requirement for lake shore lot width as stated in city ordinance, Sec. 20-480, subsection (4) (Shoreland Management): "Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property." Attached is a reply from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stating that the cited code must be interpreted as three stand alone sentences. This means 90 feet measured at the OHW line is required for lake shore property, not 75 feet as stated by city staff. We are awaiting a reply from the city on why city code permits a SFR maximum height of 35 feet while the DNR Shoreland standards dictate a height of 25 feet. Cordially, · Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 (home) Janet D. Paulsen (651) 456-7784 (opSce) Copy: Scott Botcher, City Manager Roger Knutson, City Attorney Bob Generous, Senior Planner Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Council Member Mark Senn, Council Member Steve Labatt, Council Member Linda Jansen, Council Member Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Planning Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Keven Joyce, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission Craig Peterson, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Therese Berquist, President, Sunrise Hills Civic Association Juno e-mail printed Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:39:03, page 1 From: "Russ Schultz" <russ.schultz@dnr.state.mn.us> To: <paulseng@juno.com> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:34:32 -0500 Subject: Re: sample shoreline management ordinance Mr. Paulsen, your e-mail was transferred to me for response. Answer to first question: The sentences in Section 5.14 A. are stand alone sentences. They apply to all types of residential development. Whether single, duplex, triplex, quad or planned unit development, the appropriate lot size and suitability requirements apply. Second question: For the purposes of the Shoreland Management regulations, only land above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) can be used to meet minimum lot area requirements. Yes - In determining lot area the OHW can be used as one of the lines. However formal platts and surveyed subdivisions may show different lot lines, because of different laws and procedures, but the minimum lot size is still based on land above the Ordinary High Water level. I hope this comes close to answering your questions. Sincerely, >>> Gerld W Paulsen <paulseng@juno.com> 5:49:36 PM 4/2/00 >>> 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 April 2, 2000 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul MN Subject: Sample Shoreland Management Ordinance, June 1999 You sent me a copy of this document (subtitled "DNR Waters: Shoreland Management Program"). Sec. 5.14 (Additional Special Provisions) states: A. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in sections 5.12 and 5.13 can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments under Section 8.0 of this ordinance. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in Section 5.12 can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. Are these three sentences standalone items, or is either the 2nd or 3rd sentence tied to the first sentence? I.e., are the 2nd and 3rd sentences applicable only to a residential planned unit development? It seems logical that these three sentences are standalone items. We were unable to find a definition of lot area for a lake shore property. Is the ordinary high water line used to define one of the boundaries when determining lot area? Thanks, Gerald W. Paulsen (95~) ~;~4-7032 (home) April 17, 2000 Ms. Kathryn Aenenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ref: Splitting Lotus Lake Properties Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredso Drive Dear Ms. Aenenson As a member of the Sunrise Hill Association I would like to state my position against the splitting of lots which are part of an already developed area. I am for development, but against crowding. I am certainly against derating environmental standards to allow incremental proliferation of pollution. If the City Code requires a minimum of 90 feet at the OHW line for lake properties, relaxing this standard is a step backward which opens the door for the progressive environmental deterioration of Lotus Lake. Sincerely, ,./ .... 730q Frontier Trail April 21, 2000 David Ig¢l 6195 Strawberry Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN Dear Mr. Generous, I am withdrawing my request to go in front of the City Counsel this Monday, April 24 regarding the proposed Lucas Igel Addition and I am instead requesting to be put on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 17, 2000. As you know, I began this subdivision process in September of 1999. I have met and spoken with members of the planning department numerous times and recently, was given staff recommendation to approve, as well as unanimous approval by the Planning Commission for this proposed plat. However, this week I was informed that the City had changed its stance on the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to 90 feet and that I would need to start the process over and request a variance. As we have discussed, I have made every decision on this property based on the 75-foot width requirement including the decision to purchase the lot. Consequently, I would not have spent this money or invested in surveyors, attorneys and others if the original width requirement had been more than 75 feet. It is very important to us that from here forward, this proceeds properly and with no further changes by the City. Please keep me appraised of the status of this file and if there is any further information I can provide to you on this issue. 5-01-2000 Norbert Kerber 7216 Frontier Trail Chanhassen MN 934-1391 939-1378 w Kathryn Aanenson: Community Development Dir. Chanhassen Planning Commission. Chanhassen City Council. Dear Sir or Madam. I am writing this letter in reference to the proposed "Lucas Igel Addition" that is on your May 17t~ Planning commission Agenda. As a resident of the Sunrise Hills and a resident of Chanhassen for 40 years I have a concern when someone wants to come into a neighborhood and change the very reason people built and bought homes in the Sunrise Hills area of Chanhassen. The Sunrise Hills area was an attraction to my father when he built a home there in1968 he liked the modest homes on large lots that gave him a bit of the farm with the city life. It is also important to me, as I purchased my father's home became two years ago for.the same reason. Now we have before us a proposal to take one of these large lots and subdivide it into two parcels. The first attempt by the new owner to subdivide was sent back to the Planning Commission when it was discovered that he needed 90 feet of lakeshore instead of 75 feet that was believed to be the minimum required. (Kind of like a bad stock tip). While I was not in favor of the first proposal I felt that the Proposal would be passed as we had no legal grounds to stop it except a set of Covenants that restricts any subdivision. Although it holds no legal merit it does convex the wishes of the people that bought into the neighborhood. However now the new owners of the property are applying for a "Shoreline Variance" now this issue takes on a new prospective. A variance is a request to change an existing regulation because of a hardship, well I see no hardship here. They have an existing house on an existing lot that fits in well with the surrounding neighborhood. The only hardship here is financial hardship. And as for the alternate plan to chop down a bunch of trees to shoehorn in a second house makes less sense than the first and looks like a arm twisting maneuver. In conclusion I am not in favor of the subdivision. When we start to tear down a modest sized home on a large lot and replace them with two large homes on a small lot it starts to completely change the character of the neighborhood. Please do not allow this variance to pass it does not meet the criteria of a variance, there is no hardship and if the owner feels that he is losing this battle, he is not, and he stills has a beautiful single family lakeshore lot in a nice neighborhood. Thank you for your time to review my concern. 483 Mission Hills Way E. Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 May 7, 2000 MAY ! 0 000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Dir. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Igel Lotus Lake subdivision (formerly Baird property) Please include the following in the report for the Planning Commission: My brother, sister and I were raised in the home at 7303 Laredo Drive. After my father died, I lived with my mother in the home until I got married last year. After my mother died last summer we had to settle our mother's estate. We contacted the city through our realtor Noel Wellman (Burnet, 844-6000). She asked a man in the planning department if it were possible to divide the lot. If we had been able to sell half the property, I might have been able to keep the home for my own family. The answer from the city was no, the lot could not be divided. Now we hear that Mr. Igel, is asking the city to permit him to divide it into two lots. Since we were told the lot could not be divided, Mr. Igel should not be permitted to divide the lot. Sincerely, Chris Baird 949-6121 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 May 8, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, Planning Commission meeting May 17, 2000 (Please attach this to the Staff Report). Since 1994 the city has required a minimum width of 75 feet for residential lake shore. Code was recently interpreted to require 90 feet. Attached are parts of two preliminary plats submitted by the developer. The left side (Plat # 1) is dated March 10, 2000 (March 15th Planning Commission meeting). The right side (Plat #2) is dated April 20 (May 17th Planning Commission meeting). Please direct your attention to the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line, a contour line at an elevation of 896.3 feet, just left of the Lotus Lake shore line. Note the difference in the OHW line on each of the two plats. At points A and B the OHW line on the recent Plat #2 is lengthened by pronounced bulges toward the lake. Point B on Plat #2 is shifted toward the lake by two feet. The net result is an increase in the length of the OHW line. The length of the OHW is critical because it is the lot width for meeting the code requirement for lake shore, and for calculating total lot area. The length of the OHW line was not specified on Plat #1 as required by code. The Staff Report for the March 15th Planning Commission hearing stated that the required shore line length was met at the survey line (to the left of the OHW line some 16+ feet). Kathryn Aanenson requested the length of the OHW line from Mr. Igel on March 17. This request was ignored for five weeks. The length of the survey line is 152.97 ft. Plat #2 now defines the OHW line as being exactly 75.00 feet for each of the two proposed lots. This saves the developer from having to admit to not having a full 75 feet on Plat # 1 which would have required a variance. Bob Generous stated that after reviewing both plats, he sees no change in' the OHW line. Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-?032 Attachment: Preliminary Plats p.1 ? Survey for: PL AT' ~l 3/~o/zooo .l¢'l~u~l~' E/evation -- 895.34 (October 5, t999) ,.f. 1 / Survey for: DAVID iOEL PLAT O.H.W. Efev.= 896..3 / / .. ,,,'. ~3uLGE AT O~W L¢t, JE O , ,;x /X d__.- / / i / / / .0/ ~ LI/ ['1 /I~ ~' I / 1- I Water Elevation = 895.54 (October 6, 1999) )[~uLGE % \ \\ 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 May 9, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, Attachment for Staff Report Please include the followin9 in the Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting 17 May 2000. At[ached is a copy of a petition circulated in Sunrise Hills. It is signed by 86 individuals representing 53 residences in our subdivision expressing opposition to the subdivision of the property at 7303 Laredo Drive. Cordially, ~,,.' ~¢.../~,-," ~.,,'~ .,.~,~,...~ Debbie Lloyd (952) 934-5696 Attachment: 5 page petition PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. NAME Cwo-e_ ADDRESS PHONE PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. ADDRESS PHONE ~q-303L PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen ~innesots, are opposed to permitting ~he Subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist,'inclUding one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be.reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, d~ed'-June 21, '1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. NAME ~ - ,~ ~ .... : ADDRESS PHONE ? _F ~/- 7 ~b~--/3/2 PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1 ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. NAME ADDRESS PHONE " ~"~ I'~,-----. ""', ~ " ' e_ ' ' eL, c. - -C -~ ; ~ ) ) _. , , ., .. 1[ ' ~'x ' , ' ,, ' ,,~ . PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 'IST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. ADDRESS PHONE MALKEi SON GILLILAND MARTIN SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER 901 HARODETTE AVENUE i"'IlNNEAPOLIS, HINNESOTA 55402-3205 TELEPHONE 61~.-3,44-11 I I FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 I F. CEIVED UA¥ 1 0 2000 CITY OF CH,ANHABSF...N Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612-344-1699 May 9, 2000 Bob Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Igel's Request For Variance At 7303 Laredo Drive Dear Mr. Generous: ! represent David and Rachel Igel who own property at 7303 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen ("the Property") as shown on Exhibit A. The Igels have applied to the City of Chanhassen for a variance, if needed, related to the minimum lot width at the lakeshore of the Property. Assuming a variance is needed, we believe that the City has ample discretion to grant a variance for the proposed lot width at the shoreline. The City should exercise its discretion to grant the variance for the reasons noted herein. THE CITY HAS AMPLE DISCRETION TO GRANT A SHORELINE WIDTH VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY. As you know, a state statute gives citie, s authority to grant variances from zoning requirements. Minn. Stat § 462.357 provides that cities: ·.. may hear requests for variances from the literal provision of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance... 38378.DOC Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 2 The City's specific standard for a variance is similar to the state standard, but it also provides additional guidance as follows: Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means 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 five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. That 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 of land is located. o That 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. Minnesota cities have broad discretion to make zoning decisions, and, in particular, to grant variances. Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488,490 (Minn. App. 1995) (a court "will not invalidate a city's zoning variance decision if the city acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded it by statutes and ordinances"). Minnesota courts rarely disturb the variance decisions of approval of city councils. In Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 3 fact, I am unable to find any appellate court decision in Minnesota reversing a city council decision granting a variance. The following analysis will consider the statutory language giving cities authority to grant variances, which is similar to the City's ordinance, and the City's ordinance and will show why the City should approve the variance. I have been a City Attorney for various cities, townships and counties throughout the State for 27 years. I have lectured extensively during my 27 years to state planning groups, The League of Minnesota Cities meetings, county planning workshops, and to municipal land use attorneys at Minnesota Continuing Legal Education seminars, etc. I note this to you because based upon this experience I am generally familiar how attorneys, planners, planning commissions and council members have viewed certain principles of land use law throughout the last 27 years. Until the Rowell case was decided in 1989~ most city attorneys, planners, planning commission members and council members believed that it was very difficult under the statute and~ therefore, under the ordinances adopted pursuant thereto to grant variances~ except in the most extreme cases. Such situations typically were, for example, when because of the ravine on a preexisting lot, a house could not have been built unless a variance from a setbacl~ was granted, etc. Also variances were granted, when, if a variance were not granted as to, for example setback, numerous lovely old trees would have to be removed. However, many of us had always understood that the strict application of phrases, such as "undue hardship," "reasonable use," "circumstances unique to the property not created bY the landowner," etc. were not tests to be as strictly applied as was typically happening in the municipalities throughout the State. In fact, many planners used to say that given how they thought the tests in the statute should be so strictly construed, that if a city found that it was granting variances, that the city should amend its ordinance so that variances were not necessary in the future. That however is not required by State law and, in fact, as a review of recent case decisions will show, the Courts have found that the Legislature never intended to so restrict the flexibility of the cities. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHORELINE WIDTH REQUIREMENT WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP UNDER THE STATUTORY TESTS BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. Variances are available where a zoning provision will cause undue hardship. Three statutory factors are considered in evaluating whether there is undue hardship. Each of those three factors applies in this case and each is considered below. Ao THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE PUT TO A REASONABLE USE WITHOUT A WIDTH VARIANCE AS TO THE SHORELINE. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 4 A review of the case of Rowell v. City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989) shows that the Igels do not even need to show there is no other reasonable use to meet the standards for a variance. The Court in Rowell approved a setback variance for the expansion of a church. The Court noted that where there is no reasonable use of property without a variance, the constitutional requirement prohibiting takings of property without compensation requires the grant of the variance. Rowell, 446 N.W. 2d at 922. See also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112S.Ct. 2886, 2895 (1992)(zoning requirement constitutes a taking if it denies a landowner "all economically viable or beneficial use of the property"); Wheeler v. City of Wayzata, 511 N.W.2d 39, 41-42 (Minn. App. 1994). That is not the situation in Rowell or in this case. The Court said in enacting the statute authorizing cities to grant variances that the Minnesota Legislature intended to give cities greater discretion to grant variances than they would have in any event under the provisions of the Constitution addressing takings. Rowell 446 N.W.2d at 922. Thus, the Rowell Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to authorize variances only when there was no reasonable use without a variance. Instead, according to the Court~ the statute authorizes variances whenever the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable way: The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances in cases where the Constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of"undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. Rowell, 446 N.W. 2d at 922. Thus, the question in addressing the first part of the definition of undue hardship is a simple one: is the lot width proposal for the shoreline a reasonable one. The answer to that question is "yes" because the property owners would like to modify the width in a reasonable manner as discussed herein. As stated in this letter, my clients would like to have a variance for the minimum lot width at the lakeshore of the Property. The request is reasonable for many reasons, including, but not limited to the following: 1. The owners plan to build two single-family homes on the Property, which is acceptable under the Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 18; Subdivisions, and they want to do this in a way that has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and on the Property itself. To minimize the impacts, the owners want to place a lot split that runs perpendicular to the lakeshore creating two riparian lots. These two lots each would have a seventy-five foot shoreline (which is the minimum State of Minnesota requirement for shoreline lot width). The two homes would be placed on the Property at over 160 feet and 260 feet from the street, which would make them barely visible from the surrounding neighborhood and street. Construction of these two houses would minimize the overall removal of trees on the Property, eliminate the need to remove the larger trees located in Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 5 the most dense and most natural area of the Property and limit the reduction of canopy coverage from 77 percent to 69 percent of the total lot. Under this plat design, the placement of the two homes would enhance the view of the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) because of the opening that would be created up the middle of the Property by replacing the existing sprawling house with two more narrow profile homes. See Exhibit B. In addition, the house pads on this plat are situated on the flattest parts of the Property and require minimal grading with easy management of drainage issues. Finally, the hardcover impacts on this plat are minimized because of the limitations of the Property in the building area, which is more narrow in width resulting in more narrow home designs and better use of the current driveway location. It is not unreasonable for the Property owners to want to use the Property in a way that least impacts the surrounding neighborhood and the Property itself and takes the most advantage of the Property layout. 2. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and forty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will almost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. 3. The decreased shoreline lot width is necessary and it is not unreasonable given the fact that the City has been approving lot splits with seventy-five foot lot widths at the shoreline for sometime under the apparent misinformed assumption that it followed the State of Minnesota guidelines requiring a minimum of seventy-five feet and because sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake are under ninety feet in width. This slight decrease of fifteen feet will not be detectable from onlookers and will fit in with the general landscape of the surrounding properties on Lotus Lake. Moreover, to limit this property owner to ninety feet where the City has historically set a standard of seventy- five feet for lakeshore lot width would be unreasonable. It is more reasonable to continue applying the seventy-five foot minimum to prevent the unfair application of the City's code. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 6 THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED BECAUSE OF CURCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER. Some of the information that follows in this letter is repetitive. I repeat the information under several different section headings so each section is a self contained section without the need to cross reference to other sections, Hardship in this case arises from a number of facts, which have been explained in this letter. The property owners would like to have a variance for the lot width at the lakeshore for the Property, and the proposed width is reasonable for many reasons including but not limited to the following: 1. The owners plan to build two single-family homes on the Property, which is acceptable under the Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 18; Subdivisions, and they want to do this in a way that has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the on Property itself. To minimize the impacts, the owners want to place a lot split that runs perpendicular to the lakeshore creating two riparian lots. These two lots each would have a seventy-five foot shoreline (which is the minimum State o~'Minnesota requirement for shoreline lot width). The two homes would be placed on the Property at over 145 feet and 260 feet from the street, which would make them barely visible from the surrounding neighborhood and street. Construction of these two houses would minimize the removal of trees on the Property, eliminate the need to remove the larger trees located in the densest and most natural area of the Property and limit the reduction of canopy coverage to 77 percent of the current coverage. Under this plat design, the placement of the two homes would enhance the view of the house to the immediate southwest (7305'Laredo Drive) because of the opening that would be created up the middle of the Property by replacing the existing sprawling house with two more narrow profile homes. See Exhibit B. In addition, the house pads on this plat are situated on the flattest parts of the Property and require minimal grading with easy management of drainage issues. Finally, the hardcover impacts on this plat are minimized because of the limitations of the Property in the building area, which is more narrow in width resulting in more narrow home designs and better use of the current driveway location. It is not unreasonable for the ProPerty owners to want to use the Property in a way that least impacts the surrounding neighborhood and the Property itself and takes the most advantage of the Property layout. 2. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and thirty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 7 the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will almost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY. The immediate locality of the Property is in the Sunrise Hills neighborhood. See Exhibit A. The current lot size of the Property is one of the largest parcels in the neighborhood. Splitting of this lot will result in two lots, both of which are individually larger than the average lot in the neighborhood. Based on the Carver County ½ Section Maps for the area, the average lot size in Sunrise Hills is 19,021.56 feet. The proposed side-by-side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342 feet and 27,159 feet. In addition, in evaluating all of the residential lake lots on Lotus Lake, of the 145 lots, 63 of the lots (43 percent) are less than ninety feet in width at the shoreline. The neighboring lakeside homes to the North of the Property are 160 feet and 180 feet from the cul-de-sac, whereas the proposed side-by-side lots' homes to be located on the Property are 160 feet and 270 feet from the cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of varying lot sizes, lakeshore widths and distances from the street. There is no way that the addition of the side-by-side lot split, which both lots will individually provide wider lakeshore widths than over 40 percent of the current lots on the lake, can in any way, alter the essential character of the locality. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS ON ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. Minn. Stat § 462.357 provides that: ·.. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. (Emphasis added) ... The requested variance is fully consistent with this provision. First, the variance request is not premised on economic considerations at all. As discussed herein, the variance request is necessitated by a number of unique characteristics of the property discussed above. Thus, non-economic factors support this variance request. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 8 to ISSUANCE OF THE VARIANCE IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED HEREIN. In order to determine the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance it is important to look at the relevant sections of the zoning ordinance as a whole. On page 1158.8, in Section 20.2, the purpose of the code is to carry out the following: 1. Protect residential, commercial industrial and institutional areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses; 2. Prevent overcrowding of land; 3. Conserve and enhance the city's tax base; Protect against fire, smoke, explosion, noxious fumes, offensive noise, vibration, dust, odors, heat, glare, and other hazards to people; 5. Preserve the natural beauty and amenities of the city and achieve excellence and originality of design; 6. Facilitate the provision of public services; 7. Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property. As noted, if my clients cannot subdivide with a lot split perpendicular to the lake, my clients will subdivide with a lot split parallel to the lake, which will not prevent overcrowding of land, nor conserve the natural beauty and amenities of the City and achieve excellence and originality of design, nor secure equity among individuals in the use of their property. A home on the proposed non-riparian lot, will not promote the natural beauty of the City, achieve excellence and originality of design or secure equity among my clients in the use of their property. The Policy Section for the Shoreland Management District, Article VII, Section 20-476, Page 1191, states as follows: The uncontrolled use of shorelands of Chanhassen affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 9 of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. The granting of the variance will merely change the layout of the lots on the Property, since under the City Code the owners will still have a right to split the Property into two lots in any event. As a result, there will not be a net increase in potential negative effects to public health, safety and general welfare. The concern over the impairment of the local tax base also will not be realized because the splitting of the Property will result in an increase to the tax base for the local area. It must also be noted that the City has been approving lot splits with less than ninety feet of shoreline width for sometime and has approved sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake under ninety feet in width. In addition, the current lot size of the Property is one of the largest parcels in the Sunrise Hills neighborhood, which is one of many neighborhoods surrounding Lotus Lake. Splitting of this lot will result in two lots, both of which are individually larger than the average lot in the neighborhood. Based on the Carver County ½ SectionWlaps for the area, the average lot size in Sunrise Hills is 19,021.56 feet. The proposed side-by- side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342 feet and 27,159 feet. In addition, in evaluating all of the residential lake lots on Lotus Lake, of the 145 lots, 63 of the lots (43 percent) are less than ninety feet in width at the shoreline. The neighboring lakeside homes to the North of the Property are 160 feet and 180 feet from the cul-de-sac, whereas the proposed side-by-side lots located on the Property are 160 feet and 270 feet from the cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of varying lot sizes, lakeshore widths and distances from the street. There is no way that the addition of the side-by-side lot split, which both lots will individually provide wider lakeshore widths than over 40 percent of the current lots on the lake, can in any way, negatively impact the City's duty to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shore l'ands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. My clients want to promote the aesthetics in the area by constructing two quality homes that will enhance and blend nicely into the surrounding community. By utilizing the Property in this way, the result will be aesthetically pleasing and the neighborhood will not feel overcrowded as a result of the large lot sizes available on the Property and the fact that the lots open up to over 100 feet where the homes will be built. Again, as noted above also, the variance of 15 feet for each of the two lots will not stand out as small or crowded lots on the lake. Therefore, we believe that the variance is fully consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 10 IlL A SHORELINE WIDTH VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED BY THE CITY IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET. On page 1163, in Section 20-58, the Code states the general conditions for granting a variance including the following: (1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means 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 five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Response: The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship and will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and thirty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifiy-five percent. This house will ahnost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. In comparing the property within five hundred (500)feet of my client's property, nineteen lots are less than 15,500feet in size and the average size lot is 18, 711feet. See Exhibit D. The proposed side-by-side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342feet and 27,159feet. In addition, the proposed building pads for each lot would be located on an area of the Property that is l OO feet wide. The houses to the left and right of the Property also are 100feet wide at the building pad. In evaluating the properties within five hundred (500)feet of the Property, the lot immediately to the West and the Property are the largest at the shoreline. In addition, when the shoreline lot and the internal lot on the Property are combined, the Property is the largest by far within the surrounding five hundred (500)feet. When the Property is split into two lakeshore lots they are each seventy-five feet in width at the lakeshore, whereas there is a lot within five hundred Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 11 (500)feet of the Property that is sixty feet in width at the lakeshore. Therefore, utilizing the Property with the variance wouM blend with the surrounding neighborhood's pre- existing standards and would not depart downward from them. (2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Response: In evaluating the other lots in the zoning classification, this lot is unique because the existing housing pattern is set and the existing house on the Property blocks the house to the southeast (7305 Laredo Drive)from a lake view. By placing two houses on lots perpendicular to the lake, view areas would be created that would allow this rear property to have a nice lake view. If the Property were split parallel to the lake, the internal lot would have a dramatically negative impact on this rear lot (7305 Laredo Drive). The conditions unique to the Property also include the fact that the comparable property in the area benefited from the City's misapplication of a seventy-five foot minimum shoreline lot width requirement. I~hereas my clients are being required to comply with a ninety-foot minimum shoreline lot width requirement because of the City's realization o fits earlier mistakes of allowing for fifieen feet less shoreline lot width requirements. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Response: The variance request is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but instead is requested to utilize the Property in a way that blends with the neighborhood's pre-existing standards and does not depart downward from them. The goal of my clients' is to create two lakeshore lots to allow them the best use of the Property without impacting negatively on their neighbor's lots. (4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Response: My clients have not created the hardship that would result from the literal enforcement of the City Code. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and forty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifiy-five percent. This house will almost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 12 of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the l°ts. The decreased shoreline lot width is necessary and it is not unreasonable given the fact that the City has been approving lot splits with seventy-five foot lot widths at the shoreline for sometime under the misinformed assumption that it followed the State of Minnesota guidelines requiring a minimum of seventy-five feet and because sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake are under ninety feet in width. This slight decrease of fifteen feet will not be detectable from onlookers and will fit in with the general landscape of the surrounding properties on Lotus Lake. Moreover, to limit this property owner to ninety feet where the City has historically set a standard of seventy-five feet for lakeshore lot width would be unreasonable. It is more reasonable to continue applying the seventy-five foot minimum to prevent the unfair application of the City's code. (5) That 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 of land is located. Response: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental because the proposed lot split will be consistent with the surrounding lots in the area and the location of the building pads will barely be visible from the street. In fact, the new lot to the east would not be viewable from the street. Based on the proposed lot split of the Property, there will be no detrimental effect to the public or be injurious to any surrounding land improvements. (6) That 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. Response: The variance will not result in property use that will impair light and air supply to the neighbors because the proposed lot layouts allow for ample space between the proposed homes and the surrounding neighbors. In actuality, the variance will be an improvement over the current layout of the Property because the neighbors will benefit from better views of the lake, higher quality home designs and, at the same time, have no effect on the current light and air quality available to the surrounding neighbors. There will be no increase in congestion of the public streets because the streets were designed Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 13 for residential use and are, therefore, adequate. There will not be an increase in the danger of fire or endangerment to public safety because my clients plan to improve the quality of home currently on the Property by using the latest in building design and improved building and home products. They also plan to clean up the Property to eliminate dead and diseased trees and vegetation and remove garbage and other items that have blown onto or been left on the Property. If the proposed variation is not allowed, my clients will be utilizing the internal lot on the Property, which will have a negative impact on the neighboring property because of the proximity in which the new house Will be to the neighbors to the southeast (7305 Laredo Drive) and to the street. In addition, as described earlier, it will be necessary to remove more trees, require heavy excavating of the lot and result in larger building pads if the variance is not allowed. As a showing of good faith, my clients are willing to ensure the protection of trees on the Property by them or any future owner of the Property by creating a "tree preservation easement" over the area along the southerly boundary to be given to the neighbors at 7305 Laredo Drive. In addition, my clients are willing to plant additional trees near the southeast border (or any other border connected to neighboring land) of the Property to prevent any unwanted views of the Property (including varieties of pine trees to eliminate views in the fall and winter seasons). However, the proposed variation would result in views that are no worse than the current views of the Property. It could be argued that a variance would be required under Chapter 18 of the City Code entitled, "Subdivisions." According to Ch. 18, Sec. 18-38, a finding must be made that "The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance," which may mean that my clients need to meet the requirements of the variance test set out in this Chapter. However, these standards are even easier to satisfy than the standards set out above. For example, Ch. 18, Sec. 18-21, states the following: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; o The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. As described in Section III of this letter, my clients easily meet each of these standards. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 14 IV. THE RECENT SAGSTETTER DECISION FULLY SUPPORTS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE. The Court's statements in Rowell were recently endorsed again and expanded upon in the 1995 Sagstetter decision. A thorough review of the case is very instructive and supports the granting of the variance requested by the Igels: 1. The City owned a parcel of land with nine softballs fields, which certainly was an existing reasonable use of the parcel (similarly Igels could subdivide a non- riparian lot on the Property). would be variance. The City wanted, however, to build a dome over a softball field, which 90 feet high at the peak. The ordinance allowed for only 30 feet without a The City also needed a 20-foot side yard setback variance. 3. The parcel was immediately surrounded by residential development. The proposed dome was only 49 feet from the garages of an apartment building (Igel's plat design is consistent with the lot designs of the surrounding neighborhood). The adjacent property owners objected and introduced uncontroverted expert testimony that a 90-foot high dome would adversely affect their property values. (In Igel's case, there is evidence to suggest that the plat design will increase property values throughout the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as increase the tax-base for the City). 4. The City said the design of the entire park resulted from the City's desire to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities and public restrooms. This could only be accomplished from the revenue from renting the dome. (Igel's desires to minimize the destruction of trees (including large mature trees), prevent the elimination of the back neighbor's view of the lake, minimize hardcover, minimize impact to drainage areas, minimize views of the houses from the street, and promote property values, preserve trees and the natural setting, preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and eliminate the need for massive regrading of the lots to allow for proper building surface.) 5. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variances. The Council denied the variances based on the testimony. The Council, at a later meeting, reversed itself and approved the variances even though no additional testimony had been provided. The District Court upheld the grant of the variances. In affirming the grant of the variances, the Minnesota Court of Appeals showed again that the variance tests should not be narrowly applied to limit flexibility. As to "Reasonable Use," the Court stated at 492: Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2OO0 Page 15 Appellants construe the statute and ordinances sections, which state that the property "cannot be put to a reasonable use" under the strict provisions of the code, to mean that if the property can be put to any reasonable use, then granting a variance is unreasonable. This Court has previously construed this language to mean that the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable use, but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict provisions of the code. (There fields.) Here, the city wants to put the land to a reasonable use: placing a dome over the field to enable year-round use. The design of the entire park results from the city's desire to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities, and public restrooms. These are reasonable responses to valid concerns. As to "Unique Circumstances," the Court stated at 492: Evidence was presented that soil conditions and a sewer main prohibited excavation that would allow the field to comply with the 30-foot height limitation in the ordinance. The plan alleviated parking problems, and if a different design were used, the plan would not provide as many parking spaces. The evidence supports the city council's determination that unique conditions justify a variance in this situation. was no evidence that the dome could not have been erected over one of the other As to "Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Code," the Court stated at 492: Appellants argue the neighborhood petitions show that the domed field is not in keeping with the spirit of the code or consistent with health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The dome would allow local residents to take part in year-round activities such as playing softball on lighted fields, and a golf driving range. These factors show the city councils' determination was reasonable. As to "Increase of Value or Income Potential," the Court stated at 493: Although increased revenues likely played a role in the city council's decision, it also considered other factors supporting the decisions. The plan responds to several valid concerns. We conclude the city council's decision was reasonable. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 16 As discussed in this letter, my clients' reasons for the requested variance in all respects are far stronger than the reasons the Court approved in Sagstetter. It also is important to note that my clients have complied with every aspect of the City's planning process including relying to their detriment on the City's understanding of their Code and by making numerous alterations to their plats to accommodate the requests of neighbors. The following is a factual history of the many steps my clients have taken leading up to this letter: Early September 1999, Igels identified that 7303 Laredo is on the market, talked to listing agent, Noel Wellman, who suggests lot is sub-dividable. Met with City Planner, Bob Generous, and received city subdivision code and setback information. Mr. Generous identifies 75 feet as minimum lake frontage required per lot. Hired surveyors Carlson & Carlson to survey the lot before committing to purchase property. Surveyors determine a split into two lake lots is possible based on code and setback information given by City. Met with Bob Generous with site sketch. (Exhibit E). City staff agrees that minimums are met, and reconfirms 75-foot minimum lake frontage, but does not support the lot lines needed to keep the existing house intact. Bob Generous confirms the removal of the house would allow for two lake lots. · January 11, 2000, Igels close on the Property based on the City's confirmation that after removing the existing house, the Property will allow for two lake lots. Working with the City, Carlson & Carlson prepares preliminary plat, tree survey, grading plans, canopy coverage, average setbacks, hard cover calculations, easements, access, zoning, Ordinary High Water mark and all other requirements. · Submitted the Lucas Igel Subdivision proposal to the Planning Commission. Some attempt to block sub-division by reference to existing covenants. After review, my clients find that the covenants of the neighborhood expired in 1987 and have not been renewed. Deed restrictions are invalid and are removed from title of property. In any event, the City does not enforce private covenants. · Meeting before the Planning Commission: - Numerous neighbors came to comment on subdivision proposal. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 17 Igels offered their perspective on priority to protect the integrity of the established neighborhood, keep as many healthy trees on the property as possible, remove any underbrush or unhealthy trees choking out the healthy tree growth, build two homes that would complement the surrounding neighborhood, etc. Planning commissioner requested a narrower driveway or different driveway path to limit the number of trees that would be taken for the driveway development. Igels were not interested in an alternative driveway route, but acquiesced to the change to satisfy the neighbors and commissioner's concern over tree destruction and then, worked with Carlson and Carlson to redirect the driveway. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Lucas Igel Subdivision upon the driveway and other minor changes. At this point, the City Planner indicated that all Igels have to do is wait for Council approval because they had met all of the City requirements to subdivide the property. Two weeks after the Planning Commission meeting, the City contacted Igels regarding the "building line" and indicated that the City's support was withdrawn. Igels made minor modifications to the plat to accommodate the City's new position. Mr. Generous reviewed the change, agreed that the new plat conformed to their new interpretation of the ordinance and again reconfirmed the City's support. Within one week of the date the City Council was to vote on the subdivision, the City Planner informed the Igels that the lot widths were too narrow because the City Code required a ninety-foot shoreline width minimum. This position was inconsistent with the City's original position that the minimum shoreline width requirement was seventy-five feet because it followed the State of Minnesota requirement. Again the Igels worked with Carlson and Carlson to redraft the survey another time to meet the City's latest requirement. Only, this time, the Property was not wide enough to accommodate the shoreline width minimums and now, the Igels' are unable to subdivide the Property into two lakeshore lots and therefore, destroys their purpose for originally buying the Property. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2OOO Page 18 V. THE CITY SHOULD GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. As demonstrated above, the City has full authority to grant the requested variances. The City should exercise its discretion to do so and should approve the variances for the reasons discussed above. VI. INTERPREATION OF THE SHORELINE WIDTH RESTRICTION. Even if the City were to find a variance is needed, there is ample legal and factual support for such a variance. See above discussion related to the shoreline width variance. VII. PRECEDENT. Sometimes I find cities believe the granting of a variance will set some sort of adverse precedent, so the City must grant some future variance for some other party. I have found that the Courts do not favor finding such a precedent to be controlling because every variance application involves facts and circumstances and time periods different from prior situations where variances may have been granted. See Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W. 2d 802, 806 (Minn. App 1991). Shoreline width variances denied in the past in residential zones are irrelevant to this situation where the lot is in a Shoreland Management District, far larger than many of the other shoreline lot widths in the same district. There are numerous other unique factors related to this requested variance as discussed above. VIII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. Finally it should be noted that the fact that the City's shoreline width requirements in the zoning ordinance may have been known prior to acquisition is irrelevant in determining if a variance should be granted. In Myron v. City of Plymouth, 562 NW2d 21, 23 (Minn. App. 1997), the Court stated: One of those prerequisites is that the need for the variance not be "created by the landowner." If that includes mere purchase with knowledge, a municipality would, in effect, be prohibited from granting a variance to every subsequent owner who purchased with knowledge that a variance would be required for development. This blanket bar to granting variances is not in accordance with the legislature's general intent to give municipalities broad discretion in the land development area. Although such knowledge is irrelevant, my clients had no prior knowledge of the minimum shoreline width requirements because the City specifically told them that the minimum was seventy-five feet and my clients relied on this information before and after the moment they acquired the Property. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 19 IX. CONCLUSION. As to the shoreline width, we ask that the City approve a variance for the width requested (15 feet). We think the variance should be granted for the reasons noted above. If the City feels it is important to adopt some conditions relating thereto, as part of such approval, then we ask that you state what those conditions are as part of your approval so that we know whether or not we can proceed with the variance subject to those conditions. ge As to any of the above, we welcome the City's recommendation as to how we might modify our proposals so that the City, using whatever procedural mechanism is appropriate, can approve my clients' proceeding forward. I apologize for the length of this letter, but because of the fact situation involved, and the importance of the recent Court cases as to variances, I had no choice but to provide such a lengthy analysis. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above referenced telephone number. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Enclosures cc: Rachel Igel David Igel 26 25 ~ 24 ~1"~ ~ 7191 7193 7194 7196 7198 25"8210020 2 13 2 LOTUS 25.82OO110 . ..:: J7305 ~..: 7307 ' 7329 ~ 7331" 7333 ~ 7335 ~ 7228 7230 ~= 7332 ~ 7334 ~ ~ 7336 ~ 733~ ., ......... ~ ..:~,,,~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'" B,~ o I 410 ~" 408 ~ 406 m 404 ~ ~ "502 soo Highland Drive Hig~and Drive ~, Existing PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION x, Bui'd[n9 ~ NO. 7~o~ ~ k ~ ', ~.~ / x N 8~10'52" E / t - ~ ............. ~ t~ ................... ~'~';~' '%' ; 'i ' ~ ' ~ Existingp,u~,~nvewCy / % ' ~ ~ ":; :",'%.' i ' k Proposed' ~ I, Block I ;sting ~ ' '. / / ., ~ .. '. Survey for: O.H.W. Elev:= 896.3 I <, DAVID IGEL · ?,'"",:' ¥: Water Devotion - 895.34 (October 6, 1999) )0 PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION ~ '\ \ 'k ~' N 8~10'52~ g ~ / '~ , ~ --278.73-- ~ '~ i --f5500-- . _ ,' ~ ~ ~,:;st{n9' Biocktop~ Onvewoy ~ , mark: ut Hydrant )rner Lot 11, Block 1 - 942.87 [/ " ,' I I / \ ,,,, Survey for: 0.H.W. Elev.= 896.3 / DAVID I(;EL O d~ Water Elevation - (October 6, 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 Sizein ~et 43600 21000 21450 24200 2375O 22200 16700 14000 13400 14750 13500 32000 22300 27900 12000 14000 14000 14000 14000 34300 18000 14550 4500 15400 15400 15400 14000 14125 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 18200 42245 Prope~y within 500ff 19 lots under 15,500 35 654870 18711Avg. sq.~. 0.425 Acres/lot L \ \ \ \ ~=IHV'i .L~ HJ. QI/W NI .La=Id 06 N~H.L SS=lq S.LO-! ::lt:iOHS::l)l~'l ~ uessequeqo qv.g I, AA BIv1 SUNRISE HILLS FIRST ADDITION LOT AREA 5/11/2000 Lot, Block 1&2, 1 3,1 4,1 5,1 6,1 7,1 8,1 9,1 10,1 11,1 12,1 13,1 14,1 15,1 16,1 17,1 1,2 2,2 3,2 4,2 5,2 6,2 7,2 8,2 9,2 10,2 11,2 1,3 Total Average Area 17,057.59 19,359.00 40,233.24 14,037.54 13,950.44 13,995.73 14,118.66 17 562.06 32 331.92 47 127.09 24 402.89 36 370.45 13 846.38 15 399.34 15 893.97 15,363.72 16,658.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 15,400.00 15,400.00 15,400.00 15,400.00 13,665.00 15,750.70 17,070.48 531,794.20 18,992.65 g:\plan\bg\sunrise hills lst.xls CITYOF 0'90 C/0, Pt, o~e 612.93~ I900 Ge~e~d ~.x' 612. 93Z 573~ E~gi~teeri~g ~z.v 612.93? 9152 h~b[ic Sari,0, t-;~x 612.934.2524 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist~ DATE: 25 May 2000 SUB J: ][gel Addition On Monday, May 22, I inspected the Igel property in order to verify the submitted tree inventory. According to the inventory, there are two oaks identified as diseased and a dead ash tree. The oaks both have dead wood in their canopies but do not merit removal because of'disease'. They are both healthy trees with full canopies. The dead tree indicated on the survey is indeed dead. The Oh, of'Chanhassen. /t ~row/n~ communit~ with c[ea~ lakes, auah'a~ ¢chooh. a cham~inv doumt~um, thrivinv hudnes~et, and beautiful ~ark~. A arum ~l~ce to live. work, and t~l~ ** THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING** NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision of APPLICANT: David Igel Lake Shore Lot LOCATION: 7303 Laredo Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area, The applicant, of David Igel for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots with a variance from the lake shore width requirement on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commission discusses 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 Bob Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. 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 May 25, 2000. Lotus. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN ~$343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE 7307 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 553 i 7 JOHN H HARMER & 402 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNRISE HILLS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER 404 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CItANftASSEN MN 55317 DAVID O & RACHEL IGEL 7303 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 553 l 7 HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISSE 406 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT SAVITT & 408 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARLIS A BOVY 7339 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX 7300 LAREDO DR CItANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN 410 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL 7337 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICItARD & DEBORAH LLOYD 7302 LAREDO DR CHANt IASSEN MN 55317 DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH 7332 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRED L CUNEO JR 7335 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKAS 7304 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J & RITA M WALETSK1 7334 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS 7333 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FELIX & LOIS WHITE PO BOX 96 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON 7336 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN L JOHNSON 7331 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSON 7307 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & LINDA MAI~Y 7338 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W & L1NDA A LANDSMAN 7329 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER 400 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI 7340 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK 7215 FRONT1ER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN & THERESE BERQUIST 7207 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO 7301 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HELEN BIELSKI 7209 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J WOLLAN & 7303 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY 7211 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 553 t7 JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS 7305 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,ION Ft & JANET B HOLLER 7206 FRONTIER TRL CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J THII:iLGES & 7208 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS 7210 FRONTIER 'I'RL CHANHASSEN MN$5317 PAUL & ELLEN DIFFERDING 7228 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICIIAEL R & DORTIiEA F SHAY 7230 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT 7213 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Sunrise Hills Homeowner's Association Pat Paveiko, 7203-Frontier Trail Chanhassen,. MN 55317 Kurvers Point Homeowner's Association 7241 Kurvers Pt. Road Chanhassen,' MN 55317 · Colonial Point Homeowner's AssOciation Mr. Bill Kirkvold, President 201 Frontier Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lotus Lake Homeowner's Association Mr. Eric Lavanger, President 6790 Brule Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Frontier Trail Homeowner's Association Mrs. Peg Kirkvold 7409 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lotus Lake Betterment Association at Colonial Grove Mr. Herb LaPlatt, President 7012 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504 Lotus Lake Estates Mr. William Shimp 155 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317