Loading...
PC Staff Report 10-15-19PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, October 15, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for a Rear Yard Setback Variance to Construct a Covered Porch and Walkway at 832 Woodhill Drive Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­16 PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a 6­foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screened porch and walkway, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add on a 12­foot by 12­foot screen porch with a 12­foot by 6.5­foot screened walkway, and an approximately 130 square­foot open deck and walkway. The home is built at the 30­foot rear setback and the proposed locations of the screened walkway and porch would require a 6­foot rear setback variance. The applicant has proposed a project that encroaches six feet into the required rear yard setback. Staff believes that there are alternate locations on the property that can accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance from the City Code, and that the requested variance is for the applicant’s preferred placement of the screened porch. Furthermore, the City Code would permit the construction of an open deck, patio, and other similar improvements without the need for a variance. Due to these alternatives, staff does not believe the proposal meets the practical difficulties threshold required to grant a variance.  A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT Noreen Hoft, 832 Woodhill Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .55 acres  PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, October 15, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for a Rear Yard Setback Variance to Construct a Covered Porch andWalkway at 832 Woodhill DriveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­16PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a 6­foot rear yard setback variance for theconstruction of a screened porch and walkway, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to add on a 12­foot by 12­foot screen porch with a 12­foot by 6.5­foot screened walkway,and an approximately 130 square­foot open deck and walkway. The home is built at the 30­foot rear setback and theproposed locations of the screened walkway and porch would require a 6­foot rear setback variance.The applicant has proposed a project that encroaches six feet into the required rear yard setback. Staff believes thatthere are alternate locations on the property that can accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance fromthe City Code, and that the requested variance is for the applicant’s preferred placement of the screened porch.Furthermore, the City Code would permit the construction of an open deck, patio, and other similar improvementswithout the need for a variance. Due to these alternatives, staff does not believe the proposal meets the practicaldifficulties threshold required to grant a variance. A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTNoreen Hoft, 832 Woodhill Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family ResidentialLAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .55 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1­2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential District Section 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20­908, Yard Regulations BACKGROUND In March of 1989, the city approved a permit for the construction of a single­family home and attached garage. Numerous subsequent permits have been pulled for repairs, maintenance, and interior remodels; however, no permit has altered the footprint of either the house or garage. In October of 2004, the city approved a permit for the installation of a 120­square foot shed in the northwest corner of the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the 6­foot rear setback variance for the construction of a screen porch, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6­foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screen porch and walkway, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7­19. 3. A 10­foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Denial) Findings of Fact (Approval) Variance Document Development Review Application Narrative Plan Sheets Engineering Memo CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 15, 2019 CC DATE: November 12, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: Nov. 12, 2019 CASE #: 2019-16 BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add on a 12- foot-by-12-foot screen porch with a 12- foot-by-6.5-foot screened walkway, and an approximately 130 square foot open deck and walkway. The home is built at the 30-foot rear setback and the proposed locations of the screened walkway and porch would require a 6-foot rear setback variance. LOCATION: 832 Woodhill Drive (PID 251601930) OWNER: Noreen Hoft 832 Woodhill Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .55 acres DENSITY: NA 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. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a 6-foot rear setback variance for the construction of screened porch, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” (Note: A motion for approval, conditions for approval and appropriate Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.) Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The home was built in 1989 with a 30-foot front yard setback and a 30-foot rear yard setback on a 220-foot wide by 100-foot deep lot. The property currently has approximately 2,900 square feet of lot cover resulting in 13.2 percent lot coverage. The footprint of the home has not changed since its initial construction; however, an interior remodel was conducted in 2014. The applicant bought the home in 1990, and they are proposing to construct an open deck/walkway, and screened porch/walkway off the rear of the home. While the City Code allows open decks to encroach up to 5 feet into required setbacks, enclosed structures are required to meet the district’s yard setback. The applicant’s proposal would encroach 6 feet into the required rear yard setback. The applicant has stated that a screened deck and walkway are necessary due to her husband’s disability, which limits his mobility and will soon require the use of a wheelchair. She notes that the proposed location will provide the easiest access to the deck and will prevent insects from getting into the home during ingress and egress. She has noted that an alternative location on the east side of the house would require a lengthier transit and would block the view from the living room windows. The applicant has also noted that the proposed screen porch location is over a level portion of the yard and that other locations would involve more extensive grading. The applicant has observed that several of the surrounding homes have decks and patios, and feels that the yard’s trees will screen the porch from the neighboring properties. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-908, Yard Regulations Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 3 of 7 BACKGROUND In March of 1989, the city approved a permit for the construction of a single-family home and attached garage. Numerous subsequent permits have been pulled for repairs, maintenance, and interior remodels; however, no permit has altered the footprint of either the house or garage. In October of 2004, the city approved a permit for the installation of a 120 square foot shed in the northwest corner of the property. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF) District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with a minim lot width of 90 feet and a minimum lot depth of 125 feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 22,000 square feet with a lot width of 220 feet and lot depth of 100 feet, and has an estimated 2,900 square feet (13.2 percent) lot cover. The existing house and shed appear to meet the district’s required setbacks. NEIGHBORHOOD Carver Beach The plat for this area was recorded in July of 1927 and divided the land up into a large number of small 20-foot wide by 100-foot deep lots. Over the following decades, many of these lots were combined to create larger lots; however, many of the resulting lots are still substandard or have atypical shapes. The plat and many of its lot combinations predate the City of Chanhassen and since their creation, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. The result of this is that many properties in the area do not meet one or more of the requirements of the city’s zoning code, and a significant number of properties are either non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Variances within 500 feet: 1981-02 825 Lone Eagle Road: Approved - 17’ front, 7’ side (garage) 1988-06 6901 Yuma Drive: Approved - 7,000 sq. ft. lot size (house) 1989-08 825 Ponderosa Drive: Denied - 3,000 sq. ft. lot size (subdivision) 1996-10 855 Lone Eagle Road: Approved - 13’ front (garage) 1999-10 6870 Nez Perce Drive: Approved - 11’ rear (addition) 2004-11 795 Ponderosa Drive: Approved - 7,068 sq. ft. lot size (house) ANALYSIS Rear Yard Setback The property’s existing home is currently located 30 feet from the rear lot line. The applicant is proposing constructing a 12-foot-by-12-foot screened patio and 12-foot-by-6.5-foot screened walkway off the rear of the house. Due to the angle of the house only a small, approximately 2.5 foot, section of the screened way and approximately half of the 12-foot-by- 12-foot patio would be located within the property’s 30-foot rear setback. The city establishes rear setbacks in order to provide for rear yard greenspace, afford both the property owners and rear neighbors a sense of privacy, and to minimize the visual impact of the principal structure on surrounding properties. Section 20-908 of the City Code allows unenclosed decks and patios to project up to 5 feet into required yards; however, screened porches are not entitled to this exemption. Enclosed and unenclosed decks are treated differently due to the differing visual impact of open and closed structures. While staff agrees that decks and screened porches are reasonable accessory uses for single-family homes and that the proposed screen porch is not abnormally large, the reasonable use standard is different from preferred use and location. Since an 11-foot-by-12-foot open deck would be permitted in the same location, it is difficult to take the position that the City Code does not permit reasonable use of the property. Variances should only be granted in situations where the nature of the parcel prevents reasonable use of the parcel. The applicant’s 100-foot deep lot is shallower than the 125 feet required in the Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 5 of 7 RSF district; however, at 220 feet wide, it is significantly wider than the 90-foot minimum width required in the RSF district. When the required 30-foot front and rear setbacks and 10-foot side setbacks are removed, the property has a 40-foot deep by 200-foot wide building pad. Staff believes this area provides several options to locate a screened porch without requiring a variance. The graphic below shows three potential locations that staff believes would accommodate a screened porch without a variance. Alternative Screened Porch Locations Alternative A would utilize the door located in the house near the intersection of the home and garage to provide access to a 6-foot wide covered walkway and 12-foot-by-12-foot screened porch on the flatter portion of the lot behind the garage. Alterative B would utilize the sliding door and an open walkway to access a 12-foot-by-12-foot screened porch built off of the corner of the existing home, and Alternative C would utilize the same walkway to access a 12-foot-by-12-foot screened porch built off of the east side of the house. If a covered walkway is deemed essential, as part of options B or C, it could be accommodated with a much less intensive 2-foot rear yard variance for a small section of the walkway that would encroach into the required setback. As noted earlier, an open deck could be constructed along the back or sides of the house encroaching up to five feet into the required rear setback without requiring a variance. In order to grant a variance, the city must find that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” is clarified to mean that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by Chapter 20 of the City Code. In this case, staff believes that availability of alternative configurations for a screened porch or open deck designs that meet the requirements of Chapter 20 means that staff must recommend denial of the requested variance. Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Impact on Neighborhood Carver Beach is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and six variances have been given to the 66 properties within 500 feet of 832 Woodhill Drive. The one variance for a rear yard setback is currently a technical variance, with the property owner owning a second lot behind their existing home; however, staff does not believe that the owner owned the second lot at the time the variance was granted. Structures in the immediate vicinity appear to meet the district’s required rear yard setback, with non-conforming front and side yard setbacks being much more common. Due to the fact that most lots in this subdivision are only 100 feet deep, encroaching on the rear setback has a more pronounced impact as neighboring properties have less rear yard to offset the impact. That being said, there is a lot of vegetation between 832 Woodhill Drive and its neighbors which will provide a significant amount of screening, especially during leaf-on conditions. Overall, staff does not believe that the proposed variance would fundamentally alter or detract from the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case No. 19-16 October 15, 2019 Page 7 of 7 SUMMARY The applicant has proposed a project that encroaches six feet into the required rear yard setback. Staff believes that there are alternate locations on the property that can accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance from the City Code, and that the requested variance is for the applicant’s preferred placement of the screened porch. Furthermore, the City Code would permit the construction of an open deck, patio, and other similar improvements without the need for a variance. Due to these alternatives, staff does not believe the proposal meets the practical difficulties threshold required to grant a variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the 6-foot rear setback variance for the construction of a screened porch, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screen porch and walkway, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 3. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) 3. Variance Document 4. Development Review Application and Narrative 5. Plan Sheets 6. Engineering Memo G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-16 832 Woodhill Drive VAR\Staff Report-832 Woodhill Drive_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Noreen Hoft for a 6-foot rear setback variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-16. On October 15, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lots 2543 through 2553, inclusive, Carver Beach 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The zoning code establishes minimum rear yard setbacks to provide greenspace and separation between neighboring primary structures. While the zoning code does allow open decks, patios, and sheds to be located within required rear yards, principal structures and enclosed porches are limited to a property’s buildable area. The intent of this limit is to minimize the visual impact of tall-enclosed structures and to create a sense of space and openness between neighboring homes. In this case, both the applicant’s property and rear neighbor have lots not meeting the RSF district’s minimum lot depth, a situation that exacerbates the impact of encroachments into the required rear yard. Permitting an enclosed porch to encroach into the 30-foot rear yard setback is not consistent with the intent of the chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the 2 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: There are locations on the property that could accommodate a screened porch without requiring a variance, and the zoning code would allow for the construction of an open deck or patio in the proposed location. The city does not find that being unable to construct a preferred improvement in a preferred location constitutes a practical difficulty. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: While the lot has a substandard depth of 100 feet, it does provide a 40-foot deep building pad which is sufficient to accommodate a single-family home and typical accessory uses. The plight of the landowner is created by the landowner’s desired location for and design of the accessory structure. A different location or use of an open porch would remove the need for the variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. Multiple properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non- conforming uses. The addition of a screened porch will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-16, dated October 15, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 6-foot rear yard setback variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of October, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-16 832 woodhill drive var\findings of fact and decision 832 woodhill drive (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Noreen Hoft for a 6-foot rear setback variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-16. On October 15, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lots 2543 through 2553, inclusive, Carver Beach 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The zoning code establishes minimum rear yard setbacks to provide greenspace and separation between neighboring primary structures. The zoning code also allows for typical accessory uses such as decks and porches and allows open decks and patios to encroach up to 5 feet into required rear yard setbacks. The proposed screened porch would only extend 6 feet into the required rear yard, with the majority of the structure being located in an area permitted by the zoning code. The presence of vegetation between the applicant’s property and the neighboring structures will minimize its potential impact on the neighboring properties and will help maintain a sense of separation. Permitting the construction of a screened porch partially within the rear yard setback would be consistent with the intent of the chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the 2 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The proposed size and location of the screened porch are both reasonable, and screened porches are typical uses within the RSF district. The proposed encroachment into the required rear yard setback is similar to what an open deck would be entitled to; however, the zoning code does not extend this encroachment to enclosed decks. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The lot has a substandard depth of only 100 feet that prevents the applicant from having enough buildable area to locate the screened porch outside of the rear setback. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. Multiple properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non- conforming uses. The addition of a screened porch will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-16, dated October 15, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a screened porch, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 3. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject 3 property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of October, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-16 832 woodhill drive var\findings of fact and decision 832 woodhill drive (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-16 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot rear setback variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lots 2543 through 2553, inclusive, Carver Beach. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 3. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 2 Dated: October 15, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-16 832 woodhill drive var\variance document 19-16.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard CITY On CHkNHASSNMailingAddress-P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317it rL Phone: (952) 227-1300/Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICAT IONSFOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW it - Ia 1t _ ,a_ Submittal Date: Q 13 I11 PC Date: i i cj CC Date: let=lat- I g 60-Day Review Date: i<f Section 1: Application Type(check all that apply) Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 Subdivision (SUB) Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 Create over 3 lots 600 +$15 per lot Conditional Use Permit(CUP) lots) Single-Family Residence 325 Metes & Bounds (2 lots) 300 All Others 425 Consolidate Lots 150 El Use Permit (IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 150 Final Plat 700 In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*CI All All Others Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Rezoning (REZ) Planned Unit Development (PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) $300 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply) All Others 500 Variance (VAR)200 Sign Plan Review 150 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Site Plan Review(SPR) Single-Family Residence 150 Administrative 100 All Others 275 Commercial/Industrial Districts* 500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ID Zoning Appeal 100 thousand square feet) Include number of existing employees: CI Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 500 Include number of new employees: Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Plus $5 per dwelling unit (units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Er Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre-application meeting) 3 per address Cs- addresses) Er Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) 50 per document Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement Vacation 12-Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)Easements ( easements) Deeds TOTAL FEE: Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: 1n(vc>dh, 1i) Property Address or Location: 3 N o`'ci I-1;11 cJe C.'Q'n kt 55Gi'' Parcel#: Z5". 160 1130 Legal Description: l- s .,( - " -A n- _ .3 I ' . A 2iv' x 'cc' Total Acreage:Wetlands Present? Yes R'No f c5-1-0 evil ?a*0 Present Zoning: Select One Requested Zoning: Select One Present Land Use Designation: Select One Requested Land Use Designation: SeleQJ F CHANHASSEN Existing Use of Property: r'ZQ-s ,d et1+14..1 RECEIVED Check box if separate narrative is attached. SEP 1 3 2019 SCANNED CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. 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 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Signature:Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: ore n ' gait Contact: jam(..- Address: 3.3z kr-,,td 1/.// vi Phone: 9 ,Z - 9f /- cp /...P City/State/Zip: e..1)6 7 A ass n 712/ 7 3/7 sell: 6/.4 - 9140 -404.2 Email:nh`f t ems,f th 1;i k. is t Fax: it7,0 Signature: L. Date: Pr- This S tLy`G application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies o staff reports? Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: Email E Mailed Paper Copy Name: Applicant Via: Email E Mailed Paper Copy Address: Engineer Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: Other* Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digitallcopytothecityforprocessing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM I SUBMIT FORM) City of Chanhassen Community Development Department Section 5 Variance Application Responses: 832 Wood Hill Drive Septembet 73, 2079 {61 Written Justificatlon a. Variances shall only be permltted when they are ln harmony wlth the general purposes and intent of this Chapter (Section 20-58) and when the varlances are consistent wlth the comprehensive plan. Harmony of intent without the Section detail is difficult at this point. What we can say is that the deign will be in harmony with the Carver Beach environment and will blend-in with its surroundings. ln chanhassen we espouse to be "A community for Life. . . Providing for today and planning for tomorrow." Our variance application is a request to give my husband and I a better life in Chanhassen, providing for today so that while my husband is able we can enioy the outdoor space, and planning for tomorrow when he is less able to access it on his own. b. When there are practical difficuhies in complying wit r the zoning ordinance. "Practical dfficultes'as used in the connection with fanting the varianoe, meaning the prop€rtY owner proposes to u3e the property ln a reasonable manner not permltted by this chapter. Our decision to build a screened deck is based on my husband, Mike's disability. He has Huntington's Disease, which is a neuro-degenerative disorder that is incurable and fatal. we will both soon be homebound as the disease progresses and Mike loses more cognition and motor control. From the Huntington's Diseose Society ol Americo (HDSA) website (yutut-hc!79.919 ): Huntington's diseose (HD) is o fatol genetic disotder that couses the progressive breakdown of nerve cells in the broin. lt deteriorotes o person's physicol ond mental abilities usuolly during their prime working years ond hos no cure. The life expectancy from the onset of this disease is estimated at 15-20 years. Based on the stages of decline Mike is currently using a walker, but will soon need a wheel chair. I want to be his Caregiver for as long as possible and keep him at home. We need to find new ways to enjoy living in our home and experiencing the beautiful outdoor environment that Wood Hill Drive offers. Mike is a "country boy''from Kansas and loves the hawks, owls, deer, turkey and fox that we have on The Hill. The ease of access to the screened deck from our dining area sliding glass doors will make those experiences more accessible to him and to us. What is our practical difficulty basis for the variance? - Placing the screened deck roofed entrance at our sliding glass doors with a 6.5' depth will easily allow Mike to wheel himself out the door directly into the protected space. Our sliding doors could also stay open without letting insects into the house allowing more time for egress, which is one of the primary interests we have in screening- in the space. He would also only need to wheel himself six feet into the large screened area.rrv rrrt rqrEL ""''"""trii br cHANHASSEN RECEIVED sEP 13 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DETT Other practicality - Our house is built on a significant slope of the hill and immediately after we purchased it, we leveled the back yard into two terraces. Therefore, the area in which the submitted design is placed is level ground. Any other placement would involve water flow that could cause erosion of the footings or that we change the grade or find other structural solutions that would potentially add significant cost (also references the justification criteria in section C below). lf we moved the 12 X 12 screened deck to the East side of the house, which Bob Generous suggested as an alternate location because it would not infringe on setbacks, the screened deck would be placed in front of a 3-pane 8' X 5' casement window in our living room. That placement would both block our view of the woods and would restrict sunlight into our home from what is a very private outdoor view into the canopy of our trees. Also, my husband would need to push himself further in an unprotected space to get to the screened deck area. Building the deck on a solid wall on the North side that has no widows in the Living Room is the most practical spot. c, That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economlc considerations alone. The cost of this project is over 550,000 because we made decisions for a high-quality design using composite deck materials that will perform well in our sometimes extreme weather conditions. The shed roof will be shingled with the same brand and style as our current house roof. The railings and posts will be of the same color clad aluminum as our current exterior windows. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landosmer. We did not build this house, 832 Wood Hill Drive, however, we were the first occupants. The person who bought the property and started to construst the house was foreclosed in 1989. The mortgage lender was forced to finish the build as architecturally designed and we purchased it in December 1990. We did not choose the placement of the structure with the potential setback encroachment, which was inherent in the design should anyone want to build a deck r an addition. Even thouSh an open deck could be approved with the 5" allowance it is not workable for us. e. The variance, lf granted will not alter the essential character ofthe locality. The two neighbors to our North both have decks. Our neighbors on the West and East both have patios. Our screened deck is set into the woods and will primarily be hidden by the canopies in the Spring and Summer with manimal impact on our closest neighbors' outdoor environments f. varlances will be granted for earth sheltered construcdon as detined ln Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, suMivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. This structure is not earth sheltered. +o.rt(g- -rl.o11-.r ftr*- o'e/ * ----{o\=FAF9 cD (.o-FS: E- sFs $(J ==(-) \<iI (!L i[/d' TJ ^d -o{ a -9f) :,U9 \ I .\- \ .-o' '--- q & a ,2+ !-! { Ct s E --s ,: o =*+ --o o,6] | - -r -a, -- - -'9'.u - o (+; 81fit1{x;:r.x (1 ia ! (,() YE] )/IIIIIIIIII I : I I t I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ ..1.J..1r.I\io*rl,r l'i r! ,' L'[. o)e(\l 6a o- LlJ<t) zUTct)U)*o =s<= 6ts ECE F6 o\ Ii: *rn.{r{. I EILot5..El{OEAC B'rofi oEtr ..1 ,.8sLal #r,I TE .k de oiq E5.P x'a ir5Et89to LrOIcra BI =Iss ir+t, H.lal .e1 TE99 To @-g E: BEok.o5t+,+rE .lJOcc)r{P.hoo>fH oo*? uotiii6d<t BEooooCE :t:+rcJt<!, t H3E8q >aJOE.d <q<P CJ6.3 a. *lr rlot-r o o 6.ia >o..1oo F{ +l(,ctr,; -oRCLi t{N."6sa<to.'hdE*T fn 'd (t<To s Y:t .4.nJIi:$?i.ste soIoh o\Eq oo eiqtql 3 aIot Eab oi t\,1 o N 0 ! E o(o oi N 1..ts Eoo t{o 0).!.!, a ohH ao o oa o e .A d tr{ 3ql co Arl d' ,', {5.T-- 3BH 8.8rl -d AFt I I 7f.'.9i.' ("\ 'El rr E3: \o frj,4. E (i :f! Cl t'i.r xl ,tt i l?t -tr) I oo*ao5l{oq:E b -l t{a (o{I \N be99ZZ99Z t99Z o ogEe 'o o.je' z? 6 eb9z o 6U ): 8'i o -o b b o e. .Ftx trl a bbg? o r 9b c).1o dE t{ B a b o 'Z troE'ct{otrot}.a,I;II,IIII 1\:tElli-'tiY1 tro(9=.=edz.a2- = (-) ol,dt}{kta @aog E E :i. +' d .___!o= ,r o o a o a \loNls\]gY)',tIIi I I I db-airrSI$t .-ialcr.D t----+n..vI1-!3'f:96-r- I I .! .? l8 !i .j: ta t8 BaE' irr it -'gli! flb tt . ..,,'.1 ,l:F; r.'la ,,o'oi'.i - '...': ri - :r: 9: ,' j,, : -,^'.,.;>-.j -ts. ,,.:.;..: I i.a:,1'1tq': t{.i : :.,1,,:1:,.,,...:| t_.'r,.: ..,: :. i I , €99e trilro c9ct't - ==c{26ad 42, "-- A<r) -.1.J otuz LUouJ cc zlII.l)a4 z4 (J LLo -o I t E ? P$l I , 5 I 5t T B t 3 E a a 3 lr z99Z o99Z I 992o \ I ----*o ai 8 ? :' - l E j ,! I tt ! a ! aI E aa aI e I I T 7 t I I E n E 7 I E t tI .3 3 7 EF t , 3 t t,5 .r E : 4 , i t .9t ! .? E! f 6, It tb ti , +*ca3 Rt i ?nie i! ii{ c,(:j !i t igz_.r.-1--iq -'__'?"'_ t: 5r tlT* p 3 a fi> e5 ld CE E=;t Qaot I I T t LIa \: l--Ii I t- r f- t-- t- t-t l- It L l_ L I { a I I a I I.ttrol I I I l{ L- l''it, I al I }-,rgsF !!. e! ,H 62 aGoe:tCEldzF!.!t-|(aE}-tI aolult.''(ltJ,Cl,EFra Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Jason Wedel, Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Charlie Burke, Streets Superintendent Date: 10/3/2019 Re: Rear Yard Setback Variance at 832 Woodhill Drive – Planning Case 2019-16 The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 832 Woodhill Drive. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance at 832 Woodhill Drive can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The property is located within the Carver Beach subdivision and has no drainage and utility easements recorded or platted on the property. 4. No improvements to the existing water or sanitary sewer services is proposed at this time, and the property is served by a conforming driveway access off Woodhill Drive. 5. The survey provided appears to be from a building permit submittal from 2004. The survey used for the 2004 submittal has a certificate of survey dated from the 1980s. This dates the survey being used on the provided plans to be over 30 years old and without an original signature (required under City Ordinances Sec. 7-19). As it is probable there have been changes to the property that aren’t reflected on the older survey (e.g. public utilities, structures, elevations, etc.), and as it does not meet the requirements of Sec. 7-19, an updated survey must be submitted for review in conjunction with the plan submittal for permits. See condition 1. 6. The applicant is proposing the installation of a deck on the north side of the existing home which triggered the variance request for rear yard setbacks. The installation and construction of the proposed deck off the home would bring the structure closer to an existing public storm sewer pipe. The storm sewer pipe generally bisects the west portion of the property from north to south. There is also a storm sewer manhole located on the northwest portion of the property. Currently there are no easements for the purpose of maintenance and repair over this existing storm sewer pipe and manhole. In order to protect and maintain this public utility in perpetuity, an easement must be recorded over it. See condition 2. Proposed Conditions 1. Provide an updated survey with permit submittals that illustrates all existing utilities on site and is in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-19. 2. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be recorded in perpetuity with the property for the maintenance and repair of the storm sewer pipe and manhole located on the subject property. This easement shall extend to the southern property line in order to access the storm sewer pipe.