PC Staff Report 7-19-05
PC DATE:
July 19, 2005
1
CC DATE:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE:
8/9/05
CASE #:
05-18
BY:
JM, JS, DR
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface
coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the
th
Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86 Street. The sidewalks and patio have
been built.
nd
LOCATION:
Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2 Addition
th
380 West 86 Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
APPLICANT:
Troy & Virginia Kakacek
th
380 West 86 Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE:
0.35 acre
DENSITY:
N/A
SITE DATA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from
the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These
improvements have already been built.Staff is recommending denial of this request.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
S Lake Riley dvlB snialP taerG 101 ywH Lakeview Road E dvlB yeliR ekaL Quinn Road Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18))81 .R.C( dvlB namyL Greenleaf evirD dleifgnirp
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19, 2005
Page 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
th
The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86 Street and is zoned
Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4.23% (which represents 642.24 square
feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage
restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These structures have already been built bringing
the existing hard surface coverage to 29.23%.
Lake Susan
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
H
i
l
l
Rice Marsh Lake
s
e
L
l
a
c
n
r
i
e
C
d
s
v
l
l
l
i
B
H
n
s
o
n
i
i
M
s
a
s
l
a
P
i
M
y
t
f
a Hills
Mission
i
e
e
Crt
l
r
d
G
C
r
t
1
M
0
Tigua Lane
1
i
H
i s
l
W 86th St nl
y
s
s
o
w
D
i
i
sr
o
.
H
s
i
n
M
M
i H
s
s
i
o
n
i
H
i l
l
l
l
Fr
i s
s
s
L
c
D
a
o
r
n
.
C
e
r
t
W 86th St
t
r
C
e
ic
R
M
i
Marshland Trl
s
Subject Site
s
i
E
o
n
l
l
W
i
H
a
B
y
y
H
l
i
la
l
Monk Crt
W
W
a
Mi
ssion
c
H
k
b
e
i
r
a
d
C
r
r
t
t
l
a
n
Proposed T.H.212
d
C
rt
a
B
y
h
t
r
o
D
N
r
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review.
(a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require
building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage,
structure height, etc.
(b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall
be denied by the community development director.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
25 percent
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is .
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19, 2005
Page 3
Impervious surface
means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm
gravel
water. It shall include, but not be limited to, driveways, parking area, buildings and structures.
(20)
BACKGROUND
nd
The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2 Addition which was recorded on October
22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the
plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential
(RSF) district and has an area of 15,180 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted
impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hard cover of 29.23%.
The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as-built survey from
Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover
percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as-built survey. The
City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%.
Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover
restrictions or apply for a variance.
This application was originally scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005.
The original proposal included the concrete and gravel sidewalks as part of the variance request. This
put the hard cover request at 30.86%. The applicant requested the application be tabled in order to
revise the variance proposal. The Kakacek’s have since removed the concrete and gravel sidewalks and
have replaced them with landscaping rock and mulch. In doing so the applicant has reduced the existing
hardcover by 248 square feet, or 1.63%. Therefore, a correction to the survey hard cover calculations
needs to be made. The as-built survey includes the sidewalks as part of the hard cover calculation. The
City does not consider landscape rock and mulch, with a fabric liner, to be impervious surface.
Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations shall be ignored for the purposes of this
variance request.
Before - Gravel Walkway After – Mulch Walkway
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19, 2005
Page 4
Before - Concrete Sidewalk After – Rock Walkway
Revised as-built survey calculation:
House = 2,537.24 sq. ft.
Patio = 519.00 sq. ft.
Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft.
Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft.
TOTAL4,437.24 sq. ft. 29.23%
=
In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the
violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City
approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with
staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed
the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting
between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the
attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants’ interpretation of landscaping included patio
areas. Had staff been aware of this interpretation, the applicant would have been informed that hard
cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios.
Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as-built survey are the
dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which
was proposed. The as-built survey shows that the home and driveway alone are at 25.8% (111.24 square
feet over the maximum permitted hard cover).
ANALYSIS
The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the
sidewalks and patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sidewalks
and patios. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning
compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with
zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and
structure height.
Kakacek Variance
Planning Case #05-18
July 19, 2005
Page 5
Patio Retaining Wall/Rock Sidewalk
There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code.
Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace them with wooden decking
with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while
complying with ordinance requirements. In addition, in order to reach 25%, the size of the driveway
would have to be reduced by at least 111.24 square feet.
While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the
granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of
the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property
would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-
car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to
the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e.,
use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request.
Landscaping
nd
The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor 2 Addition included a total of 12 trees to be
planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned
th
trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86 Street is required to have a total of four
trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found
only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot
requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements.
Kakacek Variance
Planning Case #05-18
July 19, 2005
Page 6
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a. 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 these criteria.
Finding:
The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a
single-family home and a two-car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property.
There are also reasonable alternatives to the patio.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
Finding:
The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie
within the Single Family Residential District.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of
the parcel of land.
Finding:
The improvements increase the value of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding:
Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance
review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding:
The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in
runoff from this property.
f. 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.
Kakacek Variance
Planning Case #05-18
July 19, 2005
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commissionadopt the following motion:
“The Planning Commission denies Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the
maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned
Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following:
1.The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2.The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to:
1.Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.
2.Plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements.”
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance
from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall
on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions:
1.The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements.”
ATTACHMENTS
1.Findings of Fact.
2.Development Review Application.
3.Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped “Received May 6, 2005”.
4.Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005.
5.Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
6.Building Permit Survey.
7.As-Built Survey.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variance\staff report.doc