Loading...
PC Staff Report 9-15-20PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 15, 2020 Subject Consider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend a Cantilever within the Shoreland Setback on Property Located at 9391 Kiowa Trail Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­18 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2­foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are also proposing to expand the existing deck, which would require a 5­foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8­foot shoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable living space by converting the area above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling area and access to the rear yard. The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities were constructed partially within the 75­foot shoreland setback and that this pre­existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rear portion of their property. They have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porch and, with the exception of the 2­foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally, they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, they have explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it and creating a dining room with a view of the lake. In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosing decks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommend denial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval of the variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east while maintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but to recommend denial of the setback variances required to install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 15, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend a Cantilever within theShoreland Setback on Property Located at 9391 Kiowa TrailSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­18PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permitenclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2­foot shorelandsetback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into adining area by adding a 2­foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are also proposing to expand the existing deck,which would require a 5­foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8­footshoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable livingspace by converting the area above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling areaand access to the rear yard.The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities were constructedpartially within the 75­foot shoreland setback and that this pre­existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rearportion of their property. They have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porchand, with the exception of the 2­foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally,they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, theyhave explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it andcreating a dining room with a view of the lake.In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosingdecks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommenddenial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval ofthe variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east whilemaintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but to recommend denial of the setback variances required to install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback. A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT Adam Bender, ISPIRI LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  “RSF” – Single­Family Residential District LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .69 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District. Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential District Section 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1970. In June of 1981, the City issued a building permit to add an attached garage and remodel the front entryway. In June of 2008, the City issued a building permit to replace the front deck. In July of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit to add a master suite behind the garage, expand the dining room, expand the front porch, expand the deck, and expand the rear patio. Staff informed the applicant that a variance would be required for the portions of the project that would encroach into the 75­foot shoreland setback (dining room, deck, and patio). Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below, and denies the 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 15, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend a Cantilever within theShoreland Setback on Property Located at 9391 Kiowa TrailSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­18PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permitenclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2­foot shorelandsetback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into adining area by adding a 2­foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are also proposing to expand the existing deck,which would require a 5­foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8­footshoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable livingspace by converting the area above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling areaand access to the rear yard.The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities were constructedpartially within the 75­foot shoreland setback and that this pre­existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rearportion of their property. They have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porchand, with the exception of the 2­foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally,they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, theyhave explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it andcreating a dining room with a view of the lake.In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosingdecks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommenddenial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval ofthe variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east whilemaintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but to recommend denial of the setback variances requiredto install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback.A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTAdam Bender, ISPIRI LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  “RSF” – Single­Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .69 acres DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential DistrictSection 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.BACKGROUNDCounty records indicate that the house was built in 1970.In June of 1981, the City issued a building permit to add an attached garage and remodel the front entryway.In June of 2008, the City issued a building permit to replace the front deck.In July of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit to add a master suite behind the garage, expand the dining room,expand the front porch, expand the deck, and expand the rear patio. Staff informed the applicant that a variance would berequired for the portions of the project that would encroach into the 75­foot shoreland setback (dining room, deck, andpatio).Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the 3.2­footshoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approvallisted below, and denies the 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variancefor a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota StateBuilding Code.2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3,2020. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision ­ Approval Recommended Findings of Fact and Decision ­ Approval_Alternative Variance Document ­ Recommended Variance Document ­ Alternative Development Review Application Variance Request Description Variance Request Letter Proposed Plan Home Renderings Affidavit of Mailing WRC Memo CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 15, 2020 CC DATE: October 12, 2020 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 13, 2020 CASE #: PC 2020-17 BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to convert their existing deck above a screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2-foot cantilever and enclosing the space. The applicant is also proposing expanding the existing deck which would require a 5-foot shoreland setback variance and expanding an existing patio that would require an 8-foot shoreland setback variance. LOCATION: 9391 Kiowa Trail APPLICANT: Adam Bender, ISPIRI LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125 OWNER: Stacy and Edward Goff 9391 Kiowa Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family Residential District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .69 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. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2-foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 2 also proposing to expand the existing deck, which would require a 5-foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8-foot shoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable living space by converting the areas above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling area and access to the rear yard. The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities where constructed partially within the 75-foot shoreland setback and that this pre-existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rear portion of their property. The have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porch and, with the exception of the 2-foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally, they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, they have explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it and creating a dining room with a view of the lake. In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosing decks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommend denial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval of the variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east while maintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but recommends denial of the setback variances required to install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District. Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1970. In June of 1981, the City issued a building permit to add an attached garage and remodel the front entryway. In June of 2008, the City issued a building permit to replace the front deck. In July of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit to add a master suite behind the garage, expand the dining room, expand the front porch, expand the deck, and expand the rear patio. Staff informed the applicant that a variance would be required for the portions of the project that would encroach into the 75’ shoreland setback (dining room, deck, and patio). 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 3 Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires riparian lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, a shoreland setback of 75 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height, and properties are allowed one water oriented accessory structure up to 250 square feet in size within the 75-foot shoreland setback. The lot is 29,969 square feet with 6,688 square feet (22.5 percent) lot cover. The existing house has a nonconforming screen porch with a 71.8-foot shoreland setback. The existing rear deck’s stairs appear to have a nonconforming 70-foot shoreland setback. The existing rear paver patio appears to have a nonconforming 68-foot shoreland setback. The property appears to have nonconforming water-oriented accessory structures: a 52-square foot shed setback approximately four feet from the ordinary high water level and less than one foot from the side lot line; and, a 162-square foot paver patio setback about four feet from the ordinary high water level. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code. Bluff Creek Corridor This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This district requires a 75’ structure setback from the lake’s ordinary high water level and limits the property to a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located in the development site. 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD Bandimere’s Heights The plat for this area was recorded in April of 1958, and it predates the establishment of the City of Chanhassen. Despite this, the lots are fairly large with most meeting or exceeding the City’s current minimum lot area and dimension standards. Most of the original homes in the area where built between 1960 and 1970, with some of the original homes being replaced between 1990 and the present. Overall, the neighborhood appears to conform to the zoning code although some homes may have nonconforming shoreland setbacks and some structures located within the shoreland setback likely do not comply with the City’s water-oriented accessory structure standards, likely due to the fact that these setbacks and standards were created after the homes’ initial construction. Variances within 500 feet: There are no known variances within 500 feet of the subject property. ANALYSIS Shoreland Setback The City’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure setback in order to prevent the installation of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, create separation between structures and the lakeshore, and provide for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian properties. Due to the important role that this setback plays in protecting the quality of the City’s lakes and the potential for these variances to impact both the neighboring properties and all users of the City’s lakes, the City has historically been very hesitant to grant shoreland setback variances. The applicant’s home has three existing encroachments into the 75-foot shoreland setback. The screen porch encroaches approximately 3.2 feet, the deck encroaches about 5 feet, and the patio encroaches around 7 feet. Staff believes that all of these encroachments, with the exception of the paver portion of the patio added without a permit between 2008 and 2011, predate the relevant ordinances and are legal nonconformities. Since the paver patio was added after the 2007 code amendment requiring zoning permits for patios and no permit is on file for the patio, 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 5 staff cannot consider it a legal nonconformity; however, the concrete portion of the patio, where the expansion is proposed, was in place prior to the 2007 amendment and would be considered a legal nonconformity. Section 20-71 of the City Code explains the intent of the nonconforming use ordinance as: The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any nonconforming use, building or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Subsequent sections of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance permit the continuation, replacement, maintenance, and improvement, but not expansion of nonconforming uses, Sec. 20- 72(a), and require that additions to nonconforming single-family dwellings meet setback requirements, Sec. 20-72(d). When evaluating variance requests for nonconforming homes, staff examines the extent to which the requested variance deviates from the stated intent and provisions of the nonconforming use ordinance and attempts to balance this with the variance finding’s practical difficulties and reasonable use standards. Staff believes the proposed remodel and conversion of the area directly above the existing screen porch is the result of a practical difficulty in remodeling and updating an older home. Since the screen porch already encroaches into the shoreland setback and constitutes impervious surface within that area, enclosing the top of it, while technically intensifying the nonconformity, does not increase the extent of the existing encroachment. The City has historically supported these types of variance request, so long as they maintain the existing setbacks. In this case, the applicant is also proposing to extend the dining area an additional 2 feet towards the lake via cantilever. Since expanding the area of above the screen porch up to the existing nonconforming setback would allow for a 10-foot by 16-foot dedicated dining room, staff does not believe the inability to achieve an additional 2 feet of depth would create a practical difficulty and prevent reasonable use of the property. For this reason, staff believes the intent of 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 6 the nonconforming use ordinance in preventing the expansion of nonconforming uses requires that the addition maintain the existing nonconforming setback. The requested deck and patio variances should also be considered in terms of practical difficulties and reasonable use. With regards to the deck, expanding it east beyond its existing encroachment appears to be an aesthetic choice to maintain an even line with the proposed cantilever. The applicant could extend the deck six or seven feet further to the east outside of the required shoreland setback without a variance if addition deck space is desired. The fact that a possibility for expanding the deck is provided within the City Code means that the requested deck expansion variance is not the result of a practical difficultly and that reasonable use is present without the need for a variance. Similarly, the applicant’s property has a large amount of rear yard patio space, approximately 850 square feet. As was noted earlier, some of this patio area, approximately 70 square feet, was installed within the shoreland setback after the current restrictions were enacted. The requested increased encroachment into the shoreland setback appears to be the result of converting a rectangular patio into one with a half-oval bump out. This type of aesthetic design change is not the result of a practical difficulty and the exiting patio area provides reasonable use of the property. Since variances should only be granted to address practical difficulties and to provide reasonable use of a property and must be in line with the intent of the City’s non-conforming use ordinance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not grant the requested variances to increase the encroachments into the 75-foot lake setback. Staff believes that granting variances to construct a dining room addition over the existing screen porch and to maintain the existing deck line remedy the practical difficulties resulting from the age and siting of the home and provide for reasonable use of the property. 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 7 Impact on Neighborhood Bandimere’s Heights is an older subdivision where most properties broadly conform to the City Code. The area has no known variances and a handful of nonconforming uses, mostly within the shoreland setback. Given the location of the applicant’s home and the relatively minor variances that are being requested, granting the variances for this property would not be expected to impact the neighborhood. That being said, another four of the nine homes within Bandimere’s Heights were constructed before 1970, and these homeowners may also be interested in updating their homes or in demolishing and replacing these homes. Some of these homes and their amenities also appear to abut or be within the shoreland setback. Establishing the precedent that remodels, updates, and rebuilds within this neighborhood can encroach closer to the lake than existing nonconforming setbacks has the potential to lead to other more impactful variance requests. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below, and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance as requested, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval) 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Full Approval) 3. Variance Document (Partial Approval) 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 8 4. Variance Document (Full Approval) 5. Development Review Application 6. Variance Request Description 7. Variance Request Letter 8. Proposed Plan 9. Home Renderings 10. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice 11. WRC Memo g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\staff report_9391 kiowa trail_var.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Adam Bender on behalf of Stacy and Edward Goff for a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to enclose and expand a deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to expand a patio on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2020-18. On September 15, 2020, 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: Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 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: It is the intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance to allow for the maintenance and replacement of nonconforming structures, but not their expansion. The nonconforming use ordinance specifically requires that additions to nonconforming structures meet City setbacks. At its core, the nonconforming use ordinance exists to prevent the expansion of existing nonconformities and encourage their eventual removal. The portions of the requested variance that do not increase the extent of the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, are in harmony with the intent of this ordinance; however, the request to increase the existing encroachment into the shoreland setback are not. 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 property 2 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 applicant’s proposed remodel and creation of a dedicated dining area in an older home is a reasonable use, as is expanding the deck. The home’s existing placement partially within the 75-foot shoreland setback prevents any alteration that is considered an intensification of use over the existing deck and screen porch. The requested increased encroachment into the shoreland setback for the dining room, deck, and patio do not meet this test as the screen porch’s existing encroachment provides for a reasonable dining room area and the existing patio and deck already provide for reasonable use of the rear property area. If large patio and deck surfaces are needed, there are areas outside of the required shoreland setback where these features could be added. 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 plight of the landowner is due to the home being constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s current zoning standards. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Bandimere’s Heights is an older subdivision where most properties broadly conform to the City Code. The area has no known variances and a handful of nonconforming uses, mostly within the shoreland setback. Given the location of the applicant’s home and the relatively minor variances that are being requested, granting the variances for this property would not be expected to impact the neighborhood. That being said, another four of the nine homes within Bandimere’s Heights were constructed before 1970, and these homeowners may also be interested in updating their homes or in demolishing and replacing these homes. Some of these homes and their amenities also appear to abut or be within the shoreland setback. Establishing the precedent that remodels, updates, and rebuilds within this neighborhood can encroach closer to the lake than existing nonconforming setbacks has the potential to lead to other more impactful variance requests. 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 #2020-18, dated September 15, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below, and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of September, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\findings of fact and decision 9391 kiowa trail (approval_recommended).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Adam Bender on behalf of Stacy and Edward Goff for a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to enclose and expand a deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to expand a patio on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2020-18. On September 15, 2020, 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: Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 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: It is the intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance to allow for the maintenance and replacement of nonconforming structures, but not their expansion. The nonconforming use ordinance specifically requires that additions to nonconforming structures meet City setbacks. At its core, the nonconforming use ordinance exists to prevent the expansion of existing nonconformities and encourage their eventual removal. In this case, the proposed remodel and update do not meaningfully expand the existing nonconformity. The largest proposed increase is a 2-foot cantilever, which would still be over 69 feet from the lake. Other requests are similarly modest with a 1-foot increase in the patio’s non-conforming setback resulting in 7 square feet of additional impervious surface. Since the proposal does not involve adding new foundations closer to the lake or 2 increasing the principle structure’s foot print, granting a variance to allow for the home to be updated and its accessory uses to modestly expanded does not violate the intent of the nonconforming use ordinance. Similarly, the intent of the shoreland ordinance to limit impervious coverage is maintained, as the property will remain under its 25 percent impervious surface coverage with the new lot cover being added 67 feet from the lake. Finally, the location of the house relative to adjacent properties means that none of these alterations would impact the neighbor’s view of the lake, nor would they be intrusive or highly visible to individuals utilizing the lake. For these reasons the proposed variance is in harmony with the intent of the shoreland ordinance. 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 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 applicant’s proposed remodel and creation of a dedicated dining area in an older home is a reasonable use, as is expanding the deck and patio. The home’s existing placement partially within the 75-foot shoreland setback prevents any alteration that is considered an intensification of use over the existing deck and screen porch, and prevents any alterations to the existing nonconforming deck and patio. 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 plight of the landowner is due to the home being constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s current zoning standards. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Bandimere’s Heights is an older subdivision where most properties broadly conform to the City Code. The area has no known variances and a handful of nonconforming uses, mostly within the shoreland setback. Given the location of the applicant’s home and the relatively minor variances that are being requested, granting the variances for this property would not be expected to impact the neighborhood. 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. 3 5. The planning report #2020-18, dated September 15, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of September, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\findings of fact and decision 9391 kiowa trail (approval_alternative).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2020-18 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 the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. 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: September 15, 2020 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2020 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim 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\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\variance document 20-18_recommended.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2020-18 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 the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. 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: September 15, 2020 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2020 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim 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\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\variance document 20-18_alternative.doc Pc J4f,r)-|1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1 100 / Fax: (952\ 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW t-t 54 pcDare:Qlr=/ao cc oate, ldl t>l)o CruOTCIIAI'IIIASSII'I 60-Day Review Dare: lD I 13 lac> Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refet to the app.opiate Applicdtion Checklist tot requied submiltal intomation that must accornpany lhis application) I Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100 E Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-Family Residence ................................ $325 E lt otners...... ....................... $425 E lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E In conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 E subdivision (suB) ! Create 3 lots or less $300 Planned Unit Development (PUD) ..... Minor Amendment to existing PUD.... All Others............. ! Sign Plan Review.. E Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative.............. Create over 3 |ots.......................9600 + 915 per lot( lots) Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300 Consolidate Lots..............................................$150 Lot Line Adiustment.........................................$150 Final P1a1............. ................. $700 (lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)' 'Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the developmeni contract. E Vacation of Easemenis/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional reco.ding fees may apply) ff variance ryaR)................................. E Wetland Alteralion Permit (WAP) E Single-Family Residence...........$150 $27sE lt otners.................. E zoning Appeal I Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) tr nntrn E ett others............... n Rezoning (REz) ........ $425 .. $7s0 .. $1oo $s00 $150 $100 $500 $200 E Commercial/lndustrial Districts' Plus $10 per 1,000 square feel of building area:( thousand square feet) 'lnclude number of elslEg employees 'lnclude number of 49q employees: .. $100 .. $500 E ( d E Residential Districts...........s500 !gIE: When multiple applicatlons are processed concuFently, lhe appropriate fee shall be charged for each applicatlon. Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) Notification Sign lcity to instatt and remove)$200 Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate afrer pre€pplication meeting) . - . . . . . . . . . . r: . . . . . .'. $3 per address(Zu addresses) Escrow for Recording Documents (check all thal apply)................................................ $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration Permit E Deeds TOTAL FEE: n Conditional Use Permit E VacationE Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)E Easements (- easements)"il lnterim Use Permit Variance Section 2: Required lnformation Parcel #Z(, oqootoo q I Kiowr. Tnn Total Acreage 0.bq Wetlands Present? Present Zoning:Rel t (^rlT Present Land Use Designation:Requested Land Use Designation: - Legal Oescription:lo 0t l,trf I b 0T E ffives E No Requested Zoning I AUG 1.4 2020 CHANHASSEN PI.AIIIJIiIG DEPI / ffiCnect box if separate nanative is attached SubminalDate: Description of Proposal: Property Address or Location: CW OF CHANHASSEN Existing Use of Property: Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLIGANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent lo have obtained aulhorization from the property owner 10 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. lf this application has not been signed by the properly owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacrty to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am lhe party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines fo, submission oF material and the progress of this applicalion. I funher undersland 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 lhe information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name:)erz' l(fi Pt LLJ_conracr: ftO.4r- 0all0re nooress: 7l? q AFT>N ft.tO Phone l.tl-.iLtz-fl4'7 Cily/Stale/Zip:Wo 0dn-Y hN Z5 Email U- Cell: Fax: Date Cell: Fax: Date Cell: Fax'. b I ,i'r . t4 Signaturei 2z PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing lhis application, l, as property owner, have full legalcapacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. lunderstand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those condilions, subjecl only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of lhe 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 estimale prior to any authorization lo proceed with the study. I cerlify that lhe information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. N" ", Sfxo? n+o eaqlp Corc conaa. Eb Gatrt Addrcss qslt 0w* Tetc ,non", (6sl aS9^azs sgeN AP 5€317cily/stare/zip: Email: d .f{Q ,{tA;l"CaYt sig nalure: .Zo Z, This application must be compleled 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 coffer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of compleleness of lhe 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: Address: Conlact: Phone: City/State/Zip: Email: Sectlon 4: Notlfl catlon lnformatlon Who should receive copies of staff reports? ffitr ffi Email Email Email Property Owner ViaApplicant ViaEngineer ViaOthef Via fi vaileo Paper Copy Q uaiteo Paper Copy Ll tuailed Paper Copy fl uaileo Paper Gopy City/State/Zip: Email: Address I email INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your SUBMTT FORM to send a digitaldevice. PRIHT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment copy to the city for processing.T PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM *Other Contact lntormation: Name: SAVE FORM DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REqUEST: Ed & Stacy Goff, hereinafter referred to as the Clients, wish to add a functional dining space on the rear of the home, occupying the space that is currently a deck. The space is directly above an existing screened in room. Our Clients wish to cantilever the dining room 2' beyond the screened room below, however the Clients would also be willing to compromise and eliminate the cantilever, which would put the dining room wall and screened room wall in the same vertical plane, with no further encroachment into the setback than the structure currently ls. The Clients also wish to construct a new, smaller deck whlch provides an area for a BBQ grill and access to grade. We feelthat this variance request is in harmony with the code and enhances the comprehensive plan. The practicat difficulty here is the fact that the existing structure already lies within the OHWL setback of 75 feet. Thus, strict enforcement ofthe code would prohibit any practical expansion of living space. The variance request is to simply add a functional dining space. lt is not driven by financial or economic reasons. The circumstances surrounding the variance were not created by the Owner / Client. The home already lies within the setback. The Client is merely asking to change the use of the structure from a deck to enclosed living space. lf granted, the variance will positively impact the character of the property and neighborhood as a whole. August 13, 2020 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission, Thank you for considering our request for a variance, and for taking the time to understand our situation- My husband and I ctrrently own a home in St. Paul and plan to move to Chanhassen once our renovation is complete. The move to Lake Riley is very special to me because I was born and grew up in this very house. My parents bought this house in 1968, just a couple years before I was born. I grew up in this house, spending a significant amount of time in and on Lake Riley during all seasons. When I left for college, my mom stayed in the house and has maintained it on her own since that time. She now winters in Florida, and at age 82, Jo King (my mom) decided that keeping up the house, yard, and lakeshore was getting to be too much for her and this past December my husband and I took ownership of the house. The house is in need of significant repairs with the last update having been completed in 1980. We have been working with lspiri to design what we consider to be our dream home on the lake. While many houses in the area from my early days have been torn down and/or rebuilt into big, beautiful homes, it is important to us to maintain the architecture and style of the home and stay close to the original design. Our intent is not to increase the footprint of the house or add an additional level as we do not need any more space. Our planned improvements include a full remodel of both interior levels, making much needed repairs, updates and bringing everything up to code in addition to removing the second- floor overhangs, replacing the deck structure, porch. and patio that faces the lake. All of these improvements will enhance the appeal of the home, as well as add value to the neighborhood and other lake properties. The proposed change we bring before you with a variance request is for our upper level dining room. Without this variance, our dining room and kitchen area would be reduced by 7' due to the required 75' setback from the high-water mark. We based our initial design on the latest survey we had available. The proposed construction creates a dining space that cantilevers over the existing foundation by 2' to give an enhanced view of Lake Riley. Regarding the 75' flooding setback, our house is elevated on a hill, and the dining room is on the second level, 23 vertical feet above the high-water mark. This proposed space will in no way affect the lake view of our neighbors to either the north or the south. Our overall request is no change to the foundation or overall view of our house, but rather to allow us to have our dining room overlooking Lake Riley for a total variance of 7'. We are happy to provide any additional information or answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. Sincerely, -4"/l 4-1 *d Stacy (Ki ng ) Goff and Edward Goff CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE Subscribed and to before me Kim T.Dep Clerk thi&) day of 2020. (Seal) JA[M ilotary N otary Public rtha't ljrb tr, &a STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 3,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public Hearing to Consider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend s Cantilever with the Shoreland Setback at 9391 Kiowa Trail, Zoned SingleFamily Residential (RSF), Planning Case No.2020-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota and by other appropriate records. t Subject Area Dircl.imet This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilaton of recods, anfo.malion and data located in vadous city, county, stale and tederal ofices and olher sources r€ading the area shown, and is to be used for refeence purposes only. The City does not eranant that the Geooaphic lnformabon System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map ale eror free. and the City does not epresent that the GIS Data can be used for navigatronal, facking o. any olher purpcse requiring exacting measurement of distance or dircction or precjsjon in the depiction of Oeographic ieatures. The preceding disdaimer is provided puBuant to Minnesota StaMes y86.03. SuM. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges tiat the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all daims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harml€ss the City fro,n any and all claims brouoht by Use.. its employees or agents, or third padies whiai arise oul of the use/s access or use of alata Povided Subiect Area Dbclainor This map is neithe. a legally recoEbd map nor a su.vey and rs not inEnded lo be used as onc. Thas map is a comprbton ol rec.rds, info.matioo aM data located in \rarl,lls cjly, county. state and federal offces and other sources regBnling the area shoxn, and 6 to be us€d br leielence pueoses only. The City doqs not raflant that the Geographic lnbmation SFtem (GlS) Oata used b prepae this map a.e enor tree, and the City does not epresent that the GIS Data can be used for navoatioml. tradfig o. any other plrpose Gquinng exacting m€asuremeot of distance or diEdioar or p{ecSion in the deBaion of geographic leatuEs. The peceding disdairner is provided pursuant to Minnesota StaMe6 5466.03, SuM. 2r (2000), and the user of this map acknoudedges thal the Crty shall not be liable for any dafiages, aM exfesCy weives all daims, and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hokl harmless the Crty fro.n any and all daims trought by User, its employees o( agents, or thid padies f,tlk$ arise out ol the use/s access or (lse ot data provided. { ,/ ..' +i J ji -----"'' (! a <TAX_NAMET rTAX_ADD_L'l r <TAX ADD L2r (Next RecordE(TAX_NAMEtr <TAX-ADD_LI r tTAX ADD L2r 1 qI is I / -J st €, fi i,EE' Ec E EEce I re E i.P E'e E!: E gEEE gEgE IIBE Effii g*Er ;iH3 ggEEiEE; cL.g-8.: oU)F()(!oE.9q +.c o-O {: lgF(!C(Jl,rN(Y)t o n).6' o- o)E ttt 0) .: EI HHSI .o, El- : .9 I 6 * El5lsEE :El;EeEs sB€ aAiE - flEIffEEi; EgIifiEEE EET EC$EE EBiEEEEE3; b;bF55 =aitc,NoN o iq g(,oocl (! .3.l.I; 2 ..2 0) o{, o- c;c, oo E oE EoEt(,0)ct(E([ -o o- E€r= Ol,o, !iTE ;E(!(,3-> do>q) o :o o E .,2 =fo Ed 'i 6) qt! q.c FO cotpOooqo=F56poE(\lE RS 8IFo69o- o6;r!o=E' OE p ! o) o =oot-f.- ui o -o E(5 -co cao oI l-O b d,-=o(:e(! Ef,= 3EH(l) o, rL;60 bp P E hi, 8E Ee6€ or.4 i(E6E(E-! .P6E., Be€ o 6f b Hepfre5i+EPElo-d)OE-EP gE=# o)J 'o- a j o)Ec 0)d) Eop E(!;E IJJ oa (.) (o a =oc o !; p o o cg;Fa([q =Eocv-9 drt or< o oo c)'6 -o{) =bo q)E- -O-o:, EBooo!a0):,EpEo6 att c 8EE- Er:CE(50) fifrAEcc'F(EE-E-o 6q Bi oEc()o, cD ,E o o) Eco 3 c .9 o,9,oc 0) o !co (! E C' c) oog o o"fc 6 =UIz EEgEEEiiEi'[gEg EEiEiEiEEiiiiEie EEIE:EiFEEEEgiiE ltilgiiEisiEiiii EEEE$EEiiiEEIii3E q t 6 3 E 3 t E >EEOO'Eo. t!etGJ 9i;o.= =d, T*E -!,r! .tte =H c6..o9EEoo o=OE3Ooo ru Ei: 06 o t!o o l!(,oJ :,:oooILo o- Itlo lt)E .,(, =g 9.9.= .a h.eoFJ-E .9oEofE,o- .soE ci, .E.9d OEz3 ol! co .Co ED Eo €, =P6'='6l!ra(, '=IEoE=o9odg, OE REEE26 o6i!E G.Co PEI Eq .9? ci5g5 !t(!Eot S€ '-groE .:E; F'- o-oo6aD= i.E(!: BEoo E a d) (n =oot--F- u; o-o Eo-co () c,foo (!- --o b I 6Ceo o o= Ct c tt!!u ol'L oXtirai-p E h6c ta :-: eE E .e ;^q atA*cxY'-oX(E -!P6g.. Be b H gp PYa6FEEE = o! (DrEE;f 9E& JJ .=o.I j o)Ecit)dl E(!E oo ! G =o IIJ 06 o(u o o o 0 o = eo oc E3 ([q;Eoa?€ brt or< o) =--d)3E gt pE E aB 66 E'r : Et EE e F",p.= Y ^E O-< ! E^$ ='o) o! =::3=-EE e"aE! EeaH EEEEt O Y O O;iE-o ^ O< ; ; O i5Eo.,.e b9=RAEfE i=.HI =E*e u:HE,SUee yg€sHE-e€i EEP:F +E:-E -EE5FE.- d6+ at-OC(JOrNott al (D .: =l HBEe EEIEtEEE gB3;u;IE g;*gga!E H?,AEHI iF h9:EtEee =ci oNoNo ?tr Ec C'oot!Eco .3q =t: =.t2 o (0 o) o. C;c o)o E o.c, o o dr .ii6(! l,oCE,,(!(5 -d cLcf =BE9?EI6' =E-osl =->do>os-C o E o c ; fo E G o. a)c 'o too.o (L >EtooEo.oeto-J 9i; o.= rLxi= -O!!.E =r .6 ..q9 o0, o=OEfog(J 4; GEcoo)oqro ';, oEoE9 EEEgLo.0a6oo0)i- -c -.E!rIqor E R.A.gi (/, -(50s36E]E(o o.e (u\voc.oc,o69 9E;rD* Eo=:EEb esfr rcc 6E*U, ui .= -:io=;t! [B E did .EF c6 a, (l6 o (gooJ Goo o o- ooooooooooooooooooQoo6 - 6 F. 6 + r-r rn Ln (g r- oo N rn ctr sl o st ao (o Fr =.1 6 d - 6 o o o o o o o o o o + Fr ra Fr oo 6 J o Fr 6 6 o 6 6 O O o o o o t-r o o o c)6 = rh N |Jl 6 - N O c| O cl I{) (o c) ro !n @ @ @ (o5 d!.\r 6r Ar ah ah ctr or (,1 cD o ro(ocn(D Noo o (o - 5 m o 6 o o.o o o o o o a.,r.! o N o sl <t $ Nz ri 6ri !n ro ra 'tl Ln !n ul l,,)ri !n Ln u) u) lJl Lo lnr/)ro E a.t a\l N N N N N N (\ N a\J a! r! N a! a! N N N N N o J co v,z 600 = -I J J.) J -) J J J J J J d, G, IX, J ===>] r F r rErrrrrrE Pe e E -EEaIEeaEaaEe=Aaear;*a { .r <o -r Ct .r -r O O F.r rn !-t !-{ (O O Ft O Ft O O O Oq dr ro.-{ o < dr (O Lo Ln ln ro F t\ @ co ot o m rn F FE ii - t 6 !i c.r.o o.n (o .n d) d) (rt .n.n sl ql q) l'l.nAoiaror.6 ol or or ql ol ot (n ot ot cn or ('r qt or cD (,1 ctr FrO !n FFr\F. (OF rO .'l .lN+- .i,-r-{-.{..r r-rF{..r @@NnE (o (Do(o(D (o (o ro (o(or\$+ + o9oP0909 09?09 ??9ri I. F..\ F. F. I1 FFFFFFNFFl..N (l, i; ryl m {ir rn - dl (n(r1 (nd)m(nm(rd1 (l,) (nmrni = ur 6 L,,r r^ 9r Ln ra ln l,) tl ro ro u) l/1 rn ra lJ) u) r.,1 * ii .rt ,rt rn rnS trr Ln rrt u1 rrr rrr !a ra !n !1 Lt1 u) rn rn-,;.1 z z z. z q z z z z z z z z z z z z z zzii22= >'/1 > = = > = > = > > > = = = >< - - - - -z-, z. t^ z z- z z = z z z z z z z z z z z z z z '; t s ur tlJ r! uJ lrl uJ uJ uJ uJ l! uJ uJ u.l trJ uJ -, = (j) ., ur La 6 ,.i t1t,1 th tt vl tl th tn ta v\ v1 v1 th the'd 3 ? ? ? ? F ? ? ? ? 2222222222!J o- f i - - r t - - :E - - - - ! - - - r - -q,F > z 2 z 2 u Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z f,*=6555=58558d55565555 to -r{u^r-,^!lN =1-o f, 1=- c -g - r-! r J.JJ rJ-ePP H = 3 = E E : r rr r r r r f"rr epe ;E q r r =Aq AaE eaa eAs A;atI-r m X { 6 ..i -r { o Fr r.r.) r.r r< ro O ri O -r o o O Hx di di J o Gr ol ra l.,) l,r !n (D F F oo 6 ot o (r) 4t F. ^< ^i r\ o 6 an (\t tn (n ln o an (n ('| an ln m <r l,l r,) ul (JF ij .{ < (o (o ol o ( cD ot (lt (r'! ctr or ot (,t (n ot or (ti o- hlE>F 'J.l ; !,t I i:.':JllJ(AH t -4 =e EEq Hs* = _iA =;EEHgIE=EEIE=lE*=EElE Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young Walters, Associate Planner From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Date: 09/02/2020 Re: Shoreland Setback Variance at 9391 Kiowa Trail – Planning Case 2020-18 BACKGROUND The Water Resources Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 9391 Kiowa Trail. The applicant is requesting a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to convert their existing deck above a screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2-foot cantilever and enclosing the space. The applicant is also proposing expanding the existing deck which would require a 5-foot shoreland setback variance and expanding an existing patio that would require an 8-foot shoreland setback variance. The City’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure setback in order to prevent the installation of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, create separation between structures and the lakeshore, and provide for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian properties. Due to the important role that this setback plays in protecting the quality of the City’s lakes and the potential for these variances to impact both the neighboring properties and all users of the City’s lakes, the City has historically been very hesitant to grant shoreland setback variances. The applicant’s home has three existing encroachments into the 75-foot shoreland setback. The screen porch encroaches approximately 3.2 feet, the deck encroaches about 5 feet, and the patio encroaches around 7 feet. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Due to the existing nonconformities on the property, Water Resources staff recommends approving the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio. In this way, the property owner is allowed for an additional reasonable use of an existing nonconformity without further encroachment into the shoreland setback than currently exists on the property.