4. Issue PaperCITYOF
CHANHASSEN
Adminislralion
Building Inspections
Engineering
Finance
;;~ %; 2271~ic
Park a Recreatio~
~alural Resources
Public Works
Pier, )5/2271300
c*¢ 952 22/i310
Semor Center
Phy~( 9{2 227 !15
Fax 91; ;27 ~110
Web Site
To: Planning Commission
From: Sharmeen Al-Jarl, Senior Planner
Date: June 15, 2004
Re:
Issue Paper Discussing Subdivisions, Structures, 8,: Setbacks
that Predate the City Code
BACKGROUND
The majority of variances requested by residents in the City of Chanhassen are
located within subdivisions that predate the City Code. When homeowners
decide to add on to their homes, and if they need a variance, they (I) must submit
their application a minimum of 30 days prior to a Planning Commission meeting,
(2) pay an application and recording fee, and (3) demonstrate a hardship. If these
homes were built on lots that meet current City Codes, staff believes that such
variances should go through the variance process. However, if these structures
were built on lots that predate the ordinance, then staff suggests the City
investigate options to deal with these neighborhoods. We have often heard the
Planning Commission make statements such as "I like what you are doing to the
house, I think it is a definite improvement, but you don't have a hardship." It is
our intent to look at the practicality of requiring these areas to meet today's
standards.
HISTORY
Some of the neighborhoods that we are focusing our attention on consist of non-
conforming lots of record with homes that, in general, do not meet setbacks
required by the zoning ordinance.
A typical lot in the City of Chanhassen has
to meet the following minimum
Residential Single Family District
ordinance requirements (these standards
do not include bluffs or wetlands):
Lot Area (non riparian):
Lot Area (riparian):
Lot Width:
Lot Depth:
Front Yard Setback:
Rear Yard Setback:
Side Yard Setback:
Lake Shore Setback:
15,000 S.F.
20,000 S.F.
90 Feet
125 Feet
30 Feet
30 Feet
10 Feet
75 Feet
Feet
30 Feet Front Ym-d Setback
30 Feet Rear Yard Setback
Planning Commission
June 15, 2004
Page 2
The subdivisions we wish to examine are:
Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Date Filed 8/30/1913
The lots have an average width of 40 feet and a depth of 120+ feet.
· Shore Acres Filed 7/13/1951
The lots are 50- feet wide and 100+ feet deep located on Lake Riley
City Lots of Chanhassen formerly known as St. Hubertus Filed 10/20/1887
Some of the lots are 66 feet wide and 133 feet deep. Others are 60 feet wide and 142 feet
deep.
· Carver Beach Filed 7/11/1927
The lots are 20 feet wide and 100 feet deep.
A large number of homes within these subdivisions contain structures that have reduced
setbacks. The lakeshore subdivisions were summer homes or cabins that were either renovated
or rebuilt into houses. Some of the lots were consolidated to form larger parcels and meet the
current ordinance requirements; however, most are deficient.
ISSUES
To clarify the purpose of this exercise, it is useful to outline the issues. This list is prepared by
staff and the Planning Commission should feel free to alter and add to it.
1. The current ordinance governing these subdivisions automatically treats these areas as legal
nonconforming. Improvements to these properties often require variances.
A variance requires applicants to demonstrate a hardship. It is often difficult to demonstrate
that adding on and maintaining an existing nonconforming setback is a hardship. The fact
that there is a residence on the lot fulfills the requirement of reasonable use of the property.
In the past, a resident requested a variance to add an open porch to their house to give it curb
appeal. The house had very little architectural interest, did not maintain the required front
yard setback, and was built on a 12,000 square foot lot. The Planning Commission
deliberated for a lengthy time. They unanimously agreed with the applicant regarding the
esthetics of the addition but failed to find a hardship. The staff report stated "While staff
would like to recommend approval of the variance because of the potential benefits, for
consistency sake, we cannot recommend approval of the variance request". As a result of
this application, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft an ordinance that allowed
homes built prior to February 19, 1987 (the date the current city code was adopted) to add
open porches as an architectural feature to define entrances into a residence or update a front
elevation provided the addition maintain a 20-foot front yard setback. This ordinance was
adopted on May 8, 2000. This amendment solved one problem but did not address the bigger
picture of the overall nonconformities.
3. A variance application takes a minimum of an additional 30 days to process compared to a
permitted use that can be approved administratively (at staff's level). This assumes that the
Planning Commission
June 15, 2004
Page 3
application will be approved by the Planning Commission. If not, then the decision is
appealed to the City Council which will take an additional two to three weeks. The time and
uncertainty of the outcome may prevent homeowners from improving their homes after staff
explains ordinance requirements to them.
ALTERNATIVES
We believe that you have at least three alternatives to consider for dealing with these areas. If
the Planning Commission can suggest more approaches, we would be happy to research them.
The alternatives include:
Alternative 1: Rezone these subdivisions that currently fall in the Residential Single
Family District, into another category. This new category must provide an opportunity for
the reasonable use of the property. It would remain residential in nature but allow for
reduced setbacks, width, depth, and lot areas.
Alternative 2: Grant a blanket variance that acknowledges these legal nonconforming areas
and allow for reduced setbacks, width, depth, and lot areas.
Alternative 3: The last alternative is to do nothing. The City will continue to process and
review requests on a case-by-case basis.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will seek to provide standards that are practical for these areas and reduce
the nonconformities. An example of a reduced setback could be a garage maintaining a side yard
setback of 5 feet while the actual residence remains at 10 feet. Another example is a front yard
setback of 20 feet. This setback will still allow for a driveway that can accommodate a car (a car
parked in the driveway) and allow for green space. These two alternatives will not eliminate
variances but will reduce them.
Alternative 3 minimizes the effectiveness of property owners, Planning Commission, and staff's
time and resources. It keeps nonconformities in their existing status.
SUMMARY
Three alternatives for dealing with the subdivisions that predate the current ordinance have been
presented for your review. Staff is seeking your direction on the most appropriate course of
action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map.
2. Red Cedar Point Plat.
3. Shore Acres Plat.
4. St. Hubertus Plat (City Lots of Chanhassen).
5. Carver Beach Plat.
g:\plan\sa\nonconforming lots-structures-uses-issue paper.doc
Subject Plats for Consideration of
Alternative Standards
Red Cedar Point
Carver ch
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
St. Hubertus
Shore Acres
h ,)'5o
'~HOR, F..
,~c.~l~ I', IO0'.
D~OlO&~oM,
' d ~¢'4a W $&O ¢ ' 6 '47 ~"' ~4. ,, , " 6J'J ' ,/o o,,~ ,,
" d bq'~' W ~ooo ,
. ~f 7o. ~c~ ¢o the ~ ~ofion ,/,n~
~ oo OG ~ beq,nn~qq ~qd Cqcnce ~
' ~/oo a ~f~,~ oF ,/~od 2 ~
5 q'3o'~ 4o~ f~t ~ ~e ~o~ ~nd d O~o~ hOPE5 _
doun¢/of 6cop '
~;[~d Wlfi¢ ~'RO ~c~ Ou/~ ~CKqow%~ed
~nd ,ffc¢eby (¢c~,~c~d ~c plop for ~: approval of
C~ARVKI~- Eb~AE:~
LAK
COUNTY