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.