The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-01-12 minutes CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 1999 Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steven Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR A 12,515 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 20,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT FOR RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES, A 12.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 90 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT, A 14 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT,A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND A 51 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAKE LOTS FOR LAKE ACCESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME,BOB AND BRINN WITT, 8572 CARDIFF LANE, SHOREWOOD, (LOT 42, SHORE ACRES). Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Carol Watson asked if the proposed home has a basement,because it is not shown on the plans. Bob Witt responded that the home does have a basement and that it will be the same footprint as the rest of the home. Watson asked what the height of the home will have to be in order for a full basement to be constructed. She commented that it will have to be a tall home. Mr. Witt stated that the home is significantly under the 35 foot maximum height. He explained that the front elevation is approximately 27 feet and the lake side is just under 35 feet. Mr. Witt stated that they are aware that a walk-out will not be possible,based on a conversation with the engineering department. Watson stated that the engineering department recommended against a walk-out. Mr. Witt explained engineering's concern was that drainage be directed properly and that the driveway grade not exceed 10 percent. Watson stated that she wanted to make certain the applicant understood the situation. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 2 Willard Johnson asked the applicant if the driveway length could be increased from 16 feet to 20 feet, thus shifting the house into the lakeshore setback. Mr. Witt explained his plan to increase the footprint of the house by 104 sq. ft. from the submitted site plan. He stated that with the additional living space, the impervious surface would only be 25.5 percent. He commented the additional space may not be needed. Watson stated that the additional living space and the additional driveway together would exceed the maximum impervious surface permitted. Johnson asked if the house will maintain the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Mr. Witt stated that the house could be shifted 2 feet into the lakeshore setback. Watson asked what the lakeshore setback will be if the house is shifted 4 feet from the front property line. Kirchoff responded that the site plan is not accurate. Berquist stated that the setbacks could be 75 feet on the lake and 16 on the street. Don Sitter, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd., asked if he could make a comment. Johnson stated that it is not a public hearing,but he will allow him to speak. Sitter stated that a 16 foot driveway is not long enough. He stated that the house should be shifted towards the lake to accommodate a larger parking area. He explained that he does not like it, but it will improve the parking situation. Mr. Sitter recommends the maximum impervious surface be maintained. He questioned the number of stories in the house. Watson stated the house will have a basement and the lowest floor must be 3 feet above the highest water level. Sitter stated that it will not work. Watson stated that it will have to in order to meet ordinance requirements. Sitter stated that a variance should be given from the lakeshore setback, but the maximum impervious surface should be maintained. Watson said that they should give on the lake and maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 3 Peter Pemrick, 9251 Kiowa Trail, stated that the lot is too small for a house. Johnson stated that the property is a lot of record. Watson stated that the city has to allow a reasonable use of the property, otherwise the city is • "taking"the property from the owner. Pemrick stated the house should maintain all the required setbacks. Johnson stated the city has three problem areas, and this is one of them. Pemrick stated the lot is ridiculously small for a house. Mr. Witt stated that in 1989 variances were granted for the construction of a home. He explained that the variances granted were much greater than the current proposal. Mr. Witt stated that the proposal is much smaller and that they need an extra 5 percent of impervious surface. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve a 12,515 sq. ft. variance from the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area requirement on a recreational development lake, a 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot minimum lot width requirement, a 51 foot variance from the 75 foot lot width requirement for riparian lots for lake access, a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement, a 3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement and a 4 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback requirement for the construction of a single family home with the following conditions; 1. The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed surveyor. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan with 2-foot contours shall be submitted at time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. 3. The basement of the home must be 3 feet above the ordinary high water mark of the lake. 4. Type III erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation has been restored. 5. The applicant shall maintain the 10 foot required dock setbacks. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes January 12, 1999 Page 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated December 22, 1998. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TUESDA Y, JANUARY 12, 1999, 6:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Call to Order NEW BUSINESS 1. A request for the following variances for the construction of a single-family residence on Lot 42, Shore Acres, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.,Bob and Brinn Witt: (1) A 12,515 sq. ft.variance from the 20,000 sq. ft. lot area requirement for a recreational development lake lot. (2) A 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot lot width requirement. (3) A 14 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. (4) A 3 foot variance on the western property line from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement. (5) A 51 foot variance from the 75 foot width requirement for recreational development lake lots for lake access. 2. Approval of Minutes. Adjournment C I TY 0 F BOA DATE: 98 C N A N H A S SEf CC DATE: 1/12/99 CASE#: 98-12 VAR By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A request for the following variances Mr the cuiisu ucAiuii of a residence: (1) A 12,515 sq. ft.variance from the 20,000 sq. ft.lot area requirement for a recreational development lake lot. (2) A 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot lot width requirement. (3) A 14 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. 1-1 (4) A 3 foot variance on the western property line from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement. Z (5) A 11 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback requirement. Q (6) A 51 foot variance from the 75 foot width requirement for recreational development lake lots for lake U access. -- (7) A 5 percent variance from the maximum 25 percent impervious surface requirement. Iii LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres APPLICANT: Bob and Brinn Witt Q. (9247 Lake Riley Blvd.) 8572 Cardiff Lane Shorewood, MN 55344 914-9075 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 7,458 square feet DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development,Residential S: RD, Recreational Development Lake,Lake Riley E: RD,Recreational Development Lake,Lake Riley W: RSF, Single-Family Residential ' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is a vacant, riparian lot. It is fairly flat with very little elevation change. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential s Ie 4, 1 1 o ll Ro 8900 `� 9 I 1 1 _F; b, r____,___„\-\ ......„.. ,:,„„•. --i' , 1.4� `(`\ 1 9000 :' ; 1 so ; ,� ha/ 9100� i,) / i BAND/MERE J HE/GHTS \__- _ PARK '� B ND/MERE 9200J1J?!/ LAKE V*T i �� (� , 9300 PARK 9Q ! I R/LEY • *,Vv. :I44 = j D 9400 'Pcwo � O D / -.1.14s....-i-:.wt\io Nm_-,.x U U W TH STRET i .4r / i' • b _ Mli OW vI •- , : wi 111 V = 9700 Ppap , ►v- .--Ie7y r ( • C.R. 14 ) (}f'•. f--• 9t300 5 Q�i / PIONEER J7 / CIRCLE 7,,' , o' 9900 _,, ,, Q r / 10000 _ e rr tQ �,\ N �,O 1 10100 ‘.1: 1 REE WOOD cF • _ — - 10200 a 1 AK A , LA I E 0300 �,A 2\2 F I 9 8 uS TRAM \NG �OVO -10400 Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-480(2) requires that riparian lots on recreational development be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft(Attachment 2). Section 20-615 (2) requires that non-cul-de-sac lots in a residential district be a minimum width of 90 feet at the street(Attachment 3). Section 20-615 (6) (a) requires a 30 foot setback on properties zoned residential (Attachment 3). Section 20-615 (6) ( c) requires 10 foot side yard setbacks on properties zoned residential (Attachment 3). Section 20-481 (a) requires that structures be setback seventy-five (75) feet from recreational development lakes (Attachment 4). Section 20-615 (4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)percent in RSF districts (Attachment 3). Section 20-481 (f) requires that the height of structures on riparian lots shall not exceed 35 feet in residential districts (Attachment 5). Section 20-1 states that the definition of Dock Setback Zone as the area inside and running parallel to and ten (10)feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake (Attachment 6). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS UPDATE On December 1, 1998 the Board reviewed this variance request. The Board tabled the item because it was determined that the applicant needed to submitted more detailed plans. The Board agreed to give the following parameters for the house footprint: a 16 foot front yard setback (14 foot variance), a 7 foot west side yard setback(3 foot variance) and a 70 foot shoreland setback(5 foot variance). The Board required that the house and new drive not exceed the 25 percent maximum impervious surface coverage. The applicant has resubmitted a house plan designed within the parameters offered by the Board (Attachment 11). In order to maintain the maximum impervious surface, the proposal had to maintain the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The staff report has been revised to reflect the new proposal. All new information is in bold typed and all outdated information has been struck through. Witt Variance ^` January 12, 1999 Page 3 BACKGROUND Shore Acres subdivision was platted in 1951 to accommodate cottages and summer homes. The 42 lots range from 24 to 50 feet in width and 130 to 230 feet in depth. Of the original 42 lots, only 6 remain as single lots. The subject property is a single lot. The remainder of the properties are assembled contiguous lots to create a larger buildable area. Although these are lots of record, many property owners find it challenging to place a home on the lot. Therefore, many property owners requested variances from zoning ordinance requirements. The following table summarizes the variances granted on Lake Riley Blvd. Variance# Address Type of Variance 98-6 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. 7' front yard setback variance for an addition Lots 24 &25, Shore Acres 97-11 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. 7' lakeshore variance w/the condition Lots 30&31, Shore Acres that only 23 %of the lot be impervious surface 96-9 9225 Lake Riley Blvd. 3' east setback variance, 5' west setback Lot 31 variance, a 33' shoreland setback variance and a variance from the hard surface coverage. HOME NEVER CONSTRUCTED 93-10 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. 4' shoreland setback variance for garage and Lots 11 and 12 home addition 93-8 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. 9' shoreland setback and 8' front yard setback Lots 38 and 39 variance for home addition 92-9 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 36' shoreland setback variance for deck addition 92-2 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 14' front yard, 6.5' side yard, and a 7%hard Lot 29 coverage variance for a detached garage 91-16 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. 7.5' side yard variance for a home addition Lots 17, 18, & 19 90-7 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 12' shoreland setback variance for a new Lot 1 Rogers Add. home Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 4 89-13 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. 4' side yard variance for home addition Lots 15 & 16 89-1 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 14' front yard,7' shoreland, and 4.5' side Lot 42 yard set back variances for a new home SUBJECT PROPERTY— HOME NEVER CONSTRUCTED 87-8 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. 18' shoreland setback and lot area variances 86-1 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. 40' shoreland setback variance for a new Lots 34 & 35 home Nine of the 13 variances were from the shoreland setback (Attachment 7). The following details the lots' specifics. COMPARISON OF SHORELAND VARIANCES Number Address Lot depth Lot width Total area Variance Purpose Proposal 47 117.6 avg. 77.5' street 7,185 -1-12- hems 21' lako apprex. 97-11 9225 and 187.5 avg. 70' street 16,175 7' home 9223 102' lake 96-9 9225 195' avg. 32.5' street 7,825 33' home 52' lake 93-10 9919 130' 95' street 13,000 4' addition 102' lake 93-8 9243 140' avg. 100' both 14,000 9' addition 92-9 9021 92.5 avg. 150' both 13,875 36' addition 90-7 9051 120' 130' both 15,600 12' home 89-1 9247 145' 80' street 7,250 7' home 25' lake 87-8 9005 100' avg. 140' both 13,500 18' home 86-1* 9235 180' avg. 50' street 20,700 40' home (peninsula lot) *west and south portion of the lot have lake frontage This comparison was presented to show that each of these requests had situations that warranted relief. Not all variances are created equal. The site plan indicates that the house footprint will maintain the required lakeshore setback so it has been struck through on the above table. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 5 In 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved the following setbacks on this property: 14 foot front yard setback, 4.5 foot western side yard setback and 68 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a single family home on this property. In that same year, contamination was discovered on the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MnPCA) required the lot to be decontaminated. This process took until 1992. Variances are only valid for one(1) year so if the project has not been substantially completed, an extension must be requested and granted from the City Council. The City Council granted five (5) extensions to the property owner. However, the home was never constructed. The original report is included in Attachment 8. Staff has compiled a table displaying the history of the setbacks on Lot 42, Shore Acres. The original home was significantly smaller than both subsequent proposals. The original home was no closer than 20 feet to the front property and 78 feet to Lake Riley. The variances granted in 1989 did not require the property owner to maintain either of these two setbacks. The applicant did not design the house for the size and shape of the lot. The footprint was excessively large. The current proposal maintains the lakeshore setback and the eastern side yard setback, but encroaches into the front and west side yard setbacks. It is definitely an improvement over the 1989 proposal. SETBACK HISTORY Setbacks/ RSF Original Variance Current Requirements Requirements House #89-1 Proposal Front 30 feet 20 feet 16 feet 16 feet West Side 10 feet 6.8 feet 5.5 feet 7 feet East Side 10 feet -2.5 feet 10 feet 10 feet Lake 75 feet 78 feet 68 feet 75 feet Lot Area 25 % 23 % 34 % 25 % The current application seeks the same setbacks as the original '989 proposal along with variances from the lot area requirement, minimum lot width requirement, maximum impervious surface requirement-and minimum lot width for lake access requirement, front yard setback requirement and side yard setback requirement. Staff is recommending that only the minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum lot width for lake access variances be approved. ANALYSIS This application is a request for seven(7)five (5) variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Relief is requested from the following requirements: minimum shoreland lot area, Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 6 minimum lot width, front yard setback, western side yard setback, , and minimum shoreline for lake access to construct a single-family home. Section 20-58 states that a reasonable use must be granted to the property owner. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A"use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home. Staff believes that the applicant can construct a single family home within the required setbacks, however, it may not be the desired square footage. A hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. If a hardship has been demonstrated, the property owner shall be granted a variance to offer relief. In this case, staff believes that the applicant can construct a single family home that suits the lot. VARIANCES Lot Area Variance The subject property is approximately 7,485 square feet or 7,515 square feet less than the minimum in the RSF, Single-Family Residential district. The shoreland ordinance requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet for a riparian lot. Therefore, a 12,515 sq. ft. variance is required. Staff supports this variance so a home can be constructed on the property and the owner will have a reasonable use. Minimum Lot Width (at the street) Variance According to the site plan submitted, the property has 77.5 feet of street frontage. The zoning ordinance requires 90 feet(at the 30 foot setback). Staff supports a 12.5 foot variance so that the applicant can make a reasonable use of the property. Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant is proposing to place the house 4-5 16 feet from the property line abutting Lake Riley Blvd.eaves-wi , l 2 f th t- est f ,7 f e var-ianee, The zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Many of the properties on Lake Riley do not meet the required front yard setback. Staff would like to see the home meet the lakeshore setback and will support a minimum (less than 5 feet) front yard setback variance. However, 4-7 16 feet is excessive. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 7 Side Yard Setback Variance The applicant is requesting a 4 3 foot variance from the western side yard setback. The home is 5 7 feet from the lot line and the eave is 3 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 10 foot side yard setback. Staff believes that the applicant can construct a home within the required side yard setbacks and does not support this variance. This may improperly redirect drainage on the neighbors property and create unforeseen problems. The applicant will have to create drainage swales in both side yards to direct water from the street to the lake. Shoreland Setback Variance The applicant has revised the plans indicating that the home maintains the 75 feet setback. However, the setback is measured from the ordinary high water (OHW) mark. The OHW and setback will be required on the survey submitted at the time of building permit. This section has been struck through. ordinance requires a 75-feet-setbaelirtherefore eel ee is-reguested.A home ca" be een +- * rl tL, 1 t 'th t h ho .,to th; setback Lake Riley is a recreational development lake and is protected by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The MnDNR has set standards for setbacks on protected waters,which have been adopted by the City of Chanhassen. The setback for sewered structures on recreational development lakes is 75 feet. These setbacks intend to maintain good water quality. All the water runoff from this lot is discharged into Lake Riley. Staff would recommend that the Board not approve the lakeshore variance to increase the buffer to the lake. The City has worked hard to be proactive in protecting water quality of its lakes and in doing so we have established favorable relationships with regulatory agencies, such as local watershed districts and the MnDNR. Chanhassen has earned the ability to regulate building permits without having duplicate reviews by other agencies. The City has also been working with lakeshore owners throughout the City, encouraging landscape plans that are"lake friendly"and stressing the importance of the lake impact zone. The shoreland management ordinance requires that the City notify the DNR of any requested recommendationfeeenlniendatien-at4he-Desember-V meeting. Minimum Shoreland Width for Access Variance The lakeshore ordinances were adopted from rules developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The MnDNR requires that lakeshore lots on recreational development Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 8 lakes shall have a minimum width of 75 feet at the lake in order to have riparian rights. While the City requires a 90 foot width at the street, the MnDNR's requirement should be maintained at the OHW. The subject property is 24 feet wide at the lake, according to the site plan. In order to have lake rights, or a dock, the applicant needs a variance form this requirement. A dock was present on the property when the variances were granted in 1989. However, the dock was required to be removed when it was evident that the home was not going to be constructed in 1995. Section 20-904 (c ) of the zoning ordinance states that no accessory structure shall be present on a parcel with an area less than 3 acres without a primary structure. A primary structure is defined as a home. If the applicant is granted a variance from this requirement, the dock will be required to maintain the required setbacks. The zoning ordinance requires a 10 foot setback from the side lot lines for the dock. Therefore, a 4 foot wide dock can be maintained on the property. Staff is concerned about recommending approval for this variance. Although the property is a lot of record, the dock was required to be removed from the property. (Staff has noted that the dock reappeared recently when the property went up for sale.) However, the majority of riparian properties have lake access. The denial of this variance would dramatically decrease the value of this parcel. Impervious Surface Variance According to the revised site plan, the hard surface coverage is 24.5 percent. At the December 1st meeting, the Board required the proposal to meet the 25 percent maximum impervious surface. Staff does not support a variance from this requirement. Maintaining the 25 percent will ensure maximum absorbency and the filtering of water prior to entering Lake Riley. Additional hard surface may redirect water onto adjacent properties. Most residential properties are well under 25 percent hard surface coverage. Overall, the home foot percent or 2,259 square feet of the lot. The zoning ordinance states that structures on lakeshore height. The applicant hassubmitted elevations efthe house. Staff will review the issue at the time of building permit. However, it is indicated on the an impervious surface. The lot could accommodate, without the setback and impervious surface variances, a 30 foot by 40 foot house pad at the 30 foot front yard setback with a 20 foot wide driveway. Staff believes that a home should be designed for the lot. The additional impervious surface will change drainage patterns and increase runoff into the lake. A drainage plan was not submitted with this application, therefore, a grading and drainage plan will be required at the time of building permit. Staff will require that the natural drainagway be maintained. The �-- proposed house will be 2,000 square feet in addition to a finished basement. This is excessively Witt Variance —` January 12, 1999 Page 9 large for a 7,458 square foot lot. Staff understands that the applicant wishes construct a nice home, however, it should not overwhelm the lot. Staff does not support the variance from the impervious surface requirement. GRADING & HOME TYPE The applicant has stated to staff that site plan indicates the home will be a 2-story walkout. This type of home does not conform to the site topography, which requires a minimum 8 foot elevation change. Staff will not permit this type of home. The elevation change is not dramatic enough for this type of home. Also, the basement elevation must be 3 feet above the highest known water level of Lake Riley (Section 20-481 (e) (1) (a)). According to city records, the highest water level is 865.5 feet. Based on this information, the lot could accommodate, at best, a lookout with window wells. The applicant will be required to submit a survey with drainage and grading plans. This survey must be completed by a registered surveyor. DRAINAGE Although drainage plans were not submitted, staff would like to comment on the impact the construction will have on the site. The home cannot redirect drainage onto neighboring properties. An alternative home plan should be submitted that suits the size and topography of the site. The resubmitted proposal is still slightly large for the lot. Therefore, staff does not believe that a hardship has been demonstrated and recommends that the variances from the front yard setback, side yard setback, lakeshore setback and impervious surface requirement not be granted. Staff does support the lot area variance, lot width variance and minimum lakeshore width variances so the applicant has reasonable use of the property. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances,but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 10 Finding: The literal enforcement of the setbacks and impervious surfaces requirements would not cause an undue hardship. The property can accommodate an 1,800 sq. ft. house pad. Although this property is one-half the size of the required square footage of residential lot, staff believes that a home can be constructed within the required setbacks and complement the character of the neighborhood. Although pre-existing standards exist in this area, granting all of the requested variances would depart downward from these standards. It is possible that the adjacent homes could be demolished in the future so that larger homes could be built, and those new homes would have to meet the required setback. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally,to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance request is based are applicable to all lakeshore properties. The majority of all residential properties have to maintain the required setbacks. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: A home will increase the value of this property and a larger home will dramatically increase the value of the parcel even more. However, staff does not believe that the exclusive purpose of this variance is to increase the value or income of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created. The applicants desire to construct a large home on a small lot created the majority of the variance requests. A smaller house pad would complement the lot and the neighborhood. This is not a neighborhood with large lake homes. It is clear that there are other alternatives. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will permit a home to be constructed into required setbacks. The site is located on a lake and green space is important in such cases to maximize the absorbency and filtering of water before it enters the lake. The large house pad will alter the existing drainage patterns of the neighborhood. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values �-- within the neighborhood. Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 11 Finding: The variance will permit a home to be located closer to the lake,the street and neighboring properties than what would normally be found in other lakeshore properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motions: 1. "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies the requests for the-1-7 16 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement, and the 7 3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement,th_ 1' f__t .__-_____ from th_ 75 foot lakeshore ,etback y ment and th c t. e fro...., the 25 i t: y ,rf ce o g o e„t for the � lIutZ yy��`r.n vo eM„ r construction of a single-family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report." 2. "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves the requests for a 12,515 variance from the lot area requirements for a lot on a recreational development lake, a 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot lot width requirement, and a 51 foot variance from the 75 foot lot width requirement for riparian lots on recreational development lakes for lake access subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed surveyor. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan with 2-foot contours shall be submitted at time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. 3. The basement of the home must be 3 feet above the ordinary high water mark of the lake. 4. Type III erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation has been restored. 5. The applicant shall maintain the 10 foot required dock setbacks." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-480 (2), Shoreland Minimum Lot Size 3. Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks for RSF properties 4. Section 20-481 (a), Shoreland Setbacks 5. Section 20-481 (f), Shoreland Structure Maximum Height 6. Section 20-1, Definition of Dock Setback Zone 7. Lake Riley Blvd. Variances form Lakeshore Setback --� 8. Variance# 89-1 and Site Plan 9. MnDNR Minimum Shoreland Lot Widths Witt Variance January 12, 1999 Page 12 10. Section 20-481 (e) (1) (a), Minimum of Elevation of Lowest Floor Level of Lakeshore Property 11. Revised Site Plan 12. Letter from Ceil Straus, MnDNR to Cindy Kirchoff dated November 25, 1998 13. Property Owners g:\plan\ck\boa\witt 98-12 var.doc {-I C_�Gh try-mat1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 6Irin �ga1� l/t) OWNER: Jfl't't SS(-C(� APPLICANT. ADDRESS: $5 KA. ✓ , /44A-ie ADDRESS: "33/)) 51I(-C2 CI' y C i s kCr I al n did Ce) TELEPHONE (Day time) Co72-7/7 9 75 TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit — Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit ✓Variance Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" (S50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ 7 •CtJ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of --� transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. N./ PROJECT NAME �___ kiLOCATI ON LEGAL DESCRIPTION ..42/ yZ 5 AcC ,9c ei • PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST /c./Q,✓ce �D Cvv�T.t, < 4_-_ i17:4.1.-4 ,iyc �. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should.confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. 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 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed 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. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approvat'permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signat re of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on / I/ i 3 [Cl eE' Fee Paid 7� .cc Receipt No. ' The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 4 November 12,1998 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen MN 55318 To City Officers; In reference to proposed variance. For Robert and Brinn Marie Witt 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen MN Lot 42 Shore Acres Front: 13 feet including overhang. 15 feet to Garage. Westside: 3 feet including overhang. 5feet to house Eastside: 8 feet including overhang. 10 to house Lakeside: 67 feet including overhang to corner of porch. 73 feet to corner of house including overhang. We are also requesting a variance for a Dock for access/use of Lake Riley. Thank you for your consideration. SincereLy b and Brinn Marie Witt f t dl IM— L § 20-479 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P). Purgatory Creek—From Lotus Lake (10-6P) to east city boundary. All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification herein shall be considered "tributary". (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions. (a) Lot area and width standards.The lot area(in square feet)and lot width standards(in feet)for single, duplex,triplex and quad residential lots created after the date of enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classification are as follows: (1) Sewered lakes—Natural environment: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 Duplex 70,000 225 35,000 180 Triplex 100,000 325 52,000 270 Quad 130,000 425 65,000 360 \.., (2) Sewered lakes—Recreational development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 20,000 90 15,000 90 Duplex 35,000 135 26,000 135 Triplex 50,000 195 38,000 190 Quad 65,000 255 49,000 245 Unsewered lakes—Recreational development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 (3) River/stream lot width standards. There is no minimum lot size requirements for rivers and streams. The lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six (6) river/stream classifications are as follows: Tributary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer Single 150 100 90 Duplex 225 150 115 Supp. No. 8 1194 �t Itac i ' - t § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty(40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note—Inasmuch as there exists a§20-595,the provisions added by§3 of Ord.No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597-20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. 'RSF' SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT --., Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 ZONING § 20-615 (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. `-- (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements,exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) ;The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lots Where Frontage Is Measured At Setback Line r f%f • t L,•• crc • • r � • (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five(125)feet.The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. . OJcck I Flag Lots • Fron Lot Line *WS* 41 Ill $ I 100 Lot Width r i i 1111416 t I i i r- - L-- • - - uJ i v (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: V a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty(30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10)feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note—Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2,were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617-20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII. 'R.-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 ZONING § 20-481 Tributary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer Triplex 300 200 150 Quad 375 250 190 (4) Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards,and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1),(2)and(3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. (0:d. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95) Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: "~ Sewage Structures Treatment Classes of Public Waters Unsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural environment 150 150 150 Recreational development 100 75 Rivers 75 Agricultural and tributary 100 50 75 When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance set forth in the above table or the setback of the existing structure. One(1)water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten(10)feet from the ordinary high water level. (b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody. Setback From: Setback (in feet) (1) Top of bluff; (2) Unplatted cemetery; 30 50 (3) Right-of-way line of federal, state, or county highway; and 50 Supp. No. 8 1195 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. )(f) Height of structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonres- idential agricultural structures, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-482. Shoreland alterations. (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation alterations. (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treat- ment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conver- sion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings,picnic areas,access paths,beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: 1. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; 2. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; 3. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and 4. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty (30)feet,whichever is lesser,parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 251, § 1, 4-8-96) Supp. No. 9 1196.2 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Critical root zone means an area twelve(12)times the tree diameter at DBH measured from the base of the tree. Cul-de-sac means a minor street with only one (1) outlet and having an appropriate turn-around for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement. Day care center means any facility or home where tuition, fees or other forms of compensation is charged for the care of children and which is licensed by the state as a day care center. DBH means diameter measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). Deck means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site. Density, net means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes. Designated woodland area means an area within a development that has been designated in the woodland management plan as a tree preservation,forestation or replacement planting area. Development means the division of a parcel of land into two (2) or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any structure; any mining excavation, landfill or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the use of land. Dock means a wharf,pier,or other structure constructed or maintained,whether floating or not, including all"L's," "T's"or posts which may be a part thereof,whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. Dock crossbar means that portion of any "L" shaped or "T" shaped dock which is approximately parallel in alignment to the adjoining shoreline or ordinary high water mark. ./ Dock setback zone means the area inside and running parallel to and ten(10)feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake. "Extended lot lines" means an extension of the side lot lines one hundred (100) feet into a lake from and at a right angle to a line drawn between the intersection of each side lot line and the ordinary high water mark.If the extended lot lines of adjoining lots overlap, then the common extended lot line between the lots shall be at an angle which equally divides the area of overlap. Drive-in use means an establishment which by design, physical facilities, service, or by packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtain goods,or be entertained while remaining in their motor vehicle. This term includes having "drive-thru" windows. Dwelling means a building or portion thereof designed, occupied or intended to be occupied exclusively for residential purposes, but not including hotels, motels, nursing homes, travel trailers, motorhomes or bed and breakfast tourist homes. -� Supp. No. 9 1146 p\--C IzuU-i► i-c n t S f `c I TY 0 F t1avA DATE: Feb. 27, 1989 CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: CASE NO: 89-1 Variance Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: • Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residen( e Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage Z Q V LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley Boulevard D. Cl_ APPLICANT: James & Mary Ellen Jessup17' •. . �— Q 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Fa a-�7-& mily ACREAGE: . 17 acres ( 7, 500 + s . f. ) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; residential single family {Q S- RD; Lake Riley ; E- RSF; residential single family CD W- RSF; residential single family �W WATER AND SEWER: -- Municipal services are available CO PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site slopes to lake 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential 4. - 86 TM S `9 P —8600 • o m 8700 RSF. c, R12 8800 • 3 POND e , .. •a - 8900 _77-771 - R 18 _• frig i Cs RD '\ A2 ' -c..........)._ , Ai)/ as 9100 varies 141• . sd_I,',; `/7 9200 i %I/// z / LAKE L'.a r ) ,"/ 9300 _ 4 RRSF _ RILEY �- ._��`1.1116 � 9400 , :.• 9500 9.6TH T_RiE T _ °' •a*.• - 9600 o =' 9700 POND t-: C4V, -RAIL _ ( .1F. 14L 1 (7 1 ? / .4° < 9800=0 * _ I 100 Q" 200 Jessup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 2 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES RSF Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Description Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance Front Setback 30 ' 20 ' -10 ' 20 ' -10 ' Side ( east) 10 ' 6. 8 ' - 3 . 2 ' 5 ' - 5 ' Side (west) I0 ' -2 . 5 ' -12 . 5 ' 1 ' - 9 ' Rear 75 ' 78 ' + 3 ' 61 ' -14 ' Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9% Coverage The applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set- back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864 . 5 . The survey of the property does not include the elevation so the exact location of the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to encroach into the setback 14 feet. The side setback (west) is requested to be 1 foot. The existing garage on the property is located 2 . - feet off the property. The other side setback ( east) is presently 6 . 8 feet and the proposal is for this to be 5 feet at the garage and 10 feet along the side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also, the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor- ners of the house would be out of the setback. The front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and this is con- sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard and this neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car to park in the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck and porch would bring this into compliance with code require- ments . The lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conformance with this requirement . -essup Variance February 27, 1989 Page 3 The zoning code provides five findings that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals must make in order to grant the variance request. These criteria and staff analysis are as follows : A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. * The literal enforcement of this chapter would not preclude use of the property, however, enforcement of the front set- back would require a setback which is not characteristic of the homes east of this lot on the lake side of Lake Riley Boulevard. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. * Special conditions are that this lot is narrower and smaller than would be required under the present codes if it were to be created now. The question is can the lot be developed and comply with code requirements, and the answer is yes, the lot could be developed but not with a home of �., the size that is proposed. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . * The property could be developed without the variances although the house would have to have a smaller foot orint. The granting of the front yard variance allows some flexi- bility and is in keeping with the lots to the east. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. * The home to be built is a new home and it is difficult to say that non-compliance with the setbacks is not self- imposed. The present zoning was in effect when the owners purchased the property and there has been no change in requirements . E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. * The front setback is in character . Some side yard setbacks may be appropriate but a 90% reduction on the side and 50% on the other indicates the structure is simply to large for the site. This is further noted by the proposed lot f- r- -essup Variance February 27 , 1989 Page 4 coverage of 34% versus the code requirement of 25% . The encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not something the city has allowed except in unique areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals not approve the variances as proposed based on findings that the request does not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff recommends the Board adopt the following motion: • "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed variances for Variance Request #89-1, James Jessup, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side yard setbacks , rear yard setback and maximum lot cover of the ''ity Code based on the following findings : 1 . Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac- tical difficulty. 2 . The variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size and design of the proposed structures . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from applicant dated February 20 , 1989 . 2 . Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989 Application. 3 . Existing plot plan. 4 . Proposed plot plan . .,Y February 20, 1989 Board of Adjustment City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 5531 RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Board: I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the lake. It was platted decades ago therefore is not upto current standards of lot size. The current situation is that a one story structure exists there now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the se my five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets on cie neighbors property on the West property line. The one car gaje is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from HU,as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to remodel and add stories to obtain adequate spacce. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This alternative would require building a structure three stories tall and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The tradeoff for heighth versus width is perferable. CITY OF CHANHA;:CEN FEB 21t9 CHANHASSEN P! !N!NC. DEPT s The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual impact of a tall structure. I find the idea not appealing also. The situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie-shaped and not to current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The home on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year. The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current structure and like the idea of a new structure. I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and look forward to starting construction this Spring. Sincerely, James F. Jessup property owner of — 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. ( CITY of CrHANII4SSEN February 21, 1989 Ik55'Oh1?L j l5 Board of Adjustment FEBEB 1C89` City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 5531 ENGINEERlII� pFPT. RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Board: The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide me long term residence. I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the lake. The current situation is that a one story structure exists there now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too small and narrow by current standards. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This alternative would require building a structure three stories tall and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The tradeoff for height versus width is preferable. The request for variances is consistent with other lake properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore Acres, was recently granted twenty-five and forty feet variances for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the `i lake or side yard. The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual impact of a tall structure. The situation is peculiar to my lot as it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie-shaped. It is too narrow and too small in square footage by current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The home on the west side was recently remodeled and enlarged. The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current structure and like the idea of a new structure. I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and look forward to starting construction this Spring. Sincerely, James Jessup resident/property owner of 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: 3.rne As OLZJ J OWNER: JAni 5 F. OLtAtZc� ett.kf J,ESSM/ ADDRESS ADDRESS 9297 L4*E 1 -UD, l'-1�4-n1 F-1 A S 5-GN / 5 5 3/ 1- Zip Code Zip Code . TELEPHONE (Daytime) 34/ !o U 28 TELEPHONE 4'L • 0 3 S8 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY / / Fr X 3O Fr. X / 50 ,ter, n 7 7 f LOCATION Cf 7 /./j-Y,,� /F /32-0t). 1/4s -6l'• REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST /1/E.44,' / 7?-1 o/v 57 L c 11eAI LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) LOT 42 OF- 5 f4-Oi A-Ul %5 City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and _ plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By, VAI01 / 2Date fj licant The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By • f F e ner Date !o Date Application Received of -o2 -k Application Fee Paid 07,5,0D 6 75.E City Receipt No. aPsi * This Application will be considered- � dZO )(b--{ ed b h the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals PPeals at their ate— g.......miiiazam, 5 ' n P { 1. �- R4/LR040 TIE I C i !i 69e //RETAINING WALL y 0 1 Jp w �y� 1 O- PP I �1 a / i . I r aot 1 I �� y ` _ / I \,. K. . _.,le__.• - 12.8 :. / . • t EXISTING o, EXISTING• m i g` ~m GARAGES n .r. r o- 2.4 1;.,_. -23 HOUSE a. - o jr Ip s. EXISTING .` CHAIN LINK `; ; • B 6 FENCE O t` / O N e ^ z.- / . 1 f-- 0 i ram"° EXISTING i/ CHAIN LINK U �.._ FENCE WEST LINE OF THE S.E. I 4 OF SECTION 24, T.116 N.,R.23 W., 4/. ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT OF SHORE ACRES [ . 4 I b68 - /t /I R $6 ,,J9OO (A BURLEY 44 f s • -frit-P 1-7e/rVi*1=---; CV \ _` I LV \ • < q er tI rdCa re . . li ,, • �S O �� P y A OIL R040 11E 1 °P // N s9A R/C [� RETAINING wALL 4O� ` Y / ?' OOP ♦ / JQ ifAO �y^ / 1115. J s. GPI I � h / M ` / ...... .,.:: Nfirill . 4nhq Fo 7.-- i t r. EXISTING CHAIN LINK N--6 /7 FENCE G a h 0 O N a N O i O y Dt , ParGH - _ . � . I - EXISTING CHAIN LINK•— FENCE WEST LINE OF THE S.E 1/4 OF SECTION 24, T 116 N R 2!w, O _= y �f ACCORTi G TO THE RECORD PLAT OF SHIRE ACRES k1 L i' Qd d�.i_ f1lft 2 h i01<j.o. I<:.• / A ' - F6 DC CIS LG( O Z / I / , 1� • II 0 N / •' \ 4-4if-6. \\\ 1 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: To the front, rear, and side yard setback requirements of the RSF zoning district for the construction of a new single family residence. 2 . Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 42, "SHORE ACRES" , according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota 3 . Conditions. The variance is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 . The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. The building plot plan shall show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine actual setback. The building plot roan shall be prepared by a regi cTered surveyor. The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures. 3 . Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building permit to assure compliance with plans presented with variance. 4 . The site plan dated March 6, 1991, Zoning Variance No. 89-1, is the approved plan. 5. Front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line. 03/28/91 • 6. Rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck. 7 . West setback may be no less than 5. 5 feet for any portion of the structure. 8 . East setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure. 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. Dated: !i_, 1991. CITY OF CHANHASSEN j BY: .,.; .1, Donald J. Chlniel, Mayor AND /(1,(2 Don Ashworth, ity Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this . day of 0,4,v-; , 1991, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and by Don Ashworth, 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. (-----1Lct_vaC0-72.-fre_e_Ltic/"" rTARY (PUJBLIC DRAFTED BY: Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. KAPEN J. ENGELR PDT 3460 Washington Drive, Suite 202 .., ,.= NOTARY PUBU� - r> _3OTA CARVER COL":TV Eagan, Minnesota 55122 My commission exp;es 10-1&-91 (612) 456-9539 RNK: srn Minnesota DNR - Trails and Waterways:Guide to Shoreland Management: Page 1 of 2 1,i ;�% :,,, `.:N.y to:** 44 .46 �` "1:, �.-S, f i�� Cam, ate. *}� �`� "® d.' zb� r li i ' '''' :';. 4. t-.� ,Minn t s w:5 f ° 7. 4 DNR home Scorch 'Events Comments index STATEWIDE SHORELAND MINIMUM STANDARDS v Table 1: LAKES - (Sewered) Lake Class Lakeshore Non-Lakeshore Lot Width Lot Area Structure Impact Lot Width Lot Area (feet) (sq. feet) Setback (ft.) Zone (feet) (feet) (sq. feet) Natural 125 40,000 150 75 125 20,000 Environment Recreational 75 20,000 75 37.5 75 15,000 Development General 75 15,000 50 25 75 10,000 Development Table 2: LAKES- (Unsewered) Lake Class Lakeshore Non-Lakeshore Lot Lot Area Struc./Sewer Impact Lot Lot Area Width (sq. feet) Setback(ft.) Zone Width (sq. feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Natural 200 80,000 150/150 75 200 80,000 Environment Recreational 150 40,000 100/75 50 150 40,000 Development General 100 20,000 75/50 37.5 150 40,000 Development Table 3: RIVERS River Class River Shoreland Lot Width Structure Setback Impact Zone Sewage Setback (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Remote 300 200 100 150 Forested 200 150 75 100 Transition 250 150 75 100 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/shoreland management/standards.html 11/23/98 Minnesota DNR - Trails and Waterways:Guide to Shoreland Management: Page 2 of 2 Agricultural 150 50/100* 25/50* 75 Urban& 75/100* 50/100* 25/50* 75 Tributary *Sewered/Unsewered Note: Setbacks and the Shore Impact Zone are measured from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). Back to Intro Forward: Standards Du home Contents© 1998 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.All rights reserved. Please send us your comments. A. 1 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/shoreland management/standards.html 11/23/98 i tt h ro-c_ * 10 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE • Setback From: Setback (in feet) (4) Right-of-way line of town road,pub- 20 lic streets, or other roads or streets not classified. (c) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities,except stairways and landings, shall not be placed within bluff impact zones. (d) Nonresidential uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs shall be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage,or,if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, shall either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. 61)' (e) Design criteria for structures. • High water elevations. Structures shall be placed in accordance with any flood plain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or floodproofed shall be determined as follows: For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three (3) feet above the highest known water level, or three (3)feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; b. For rivers and streams,by placing the lowest floor at least three(3)feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, or by • conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flaws and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three(3)approaches,technical evaluations shall be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one (1) approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities; and c. Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is construed of flood- resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. (2) Water-oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one (1) water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in section 20-481(a) if this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten(10)feet in height,exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than two hundred fifty(250)square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade at any point. Supp. No. 8 1196 I I _ PROPOSED SITE PLAN r� �C . lc;se, erx. La ke, • RIIPy fa.,,f I HW L 0�0.5 / I _-1 1 gC.C. -\ • . vaacd i C` 'N j \ I�r at." C 7 r 3 t. \ dba w /J �j \ II'1PEP_h.;05 S UPFALF_ - DEC 3 a 1998 sa 4y w.Lx; 110s,- 87'!.'I`o/• J}OU`_L' - POKCN 14^QJ3y' 4 / .1 � v rAI_= 1Sgc - 21 ar 9 T G t- 411E f.c..f / / -.GALE Vd'-ICE-- / PROPOSED HOME FRONT ELEVATION ;01010000-0\:, \ \ . .! • ____ (Thi /\ Mil • , ), __ .,.___ __ _ ._ __ • , , , ..,__... ..__ _ ,.:.... . \ ____ . , _ ._ . . _:, , • \ .......,, _.., ,__,__ t _... ..._ , . oQ . __ __ . i i _ • . )_ . . . _ _ . • , _ . _ . ___________ - 1, , . __ _ .., , ,_....../ _• -2.-- ,-- •. -,___,./.. ,...______. ,,,, _ .t, _____. __. _,.:i;,-- _PREL1riIUAp.y SKE7G►-4 fob ' II —508 -1 .�R1,.11.1 Wr1r i ( ( PROPOSED HOME ELEVATIONS • 07,d DEC30 igg8 1, II I - 1 f r_._. .t. , , . i,____...__,2_,._ ._ __ . _ 'I.1—, 2-7--. - lig‘11II TEJ _ Lf . • II _PI( - SIDE EI.EJATIcf.1 _AEnfi- ELeiAs1.=Ki LEFT SIDE ELE✓ATL .J • Aj-(._ tc h t,lac..►i t I g.. A �P,��OF MINNFSo9 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources F DNR Waters -Metro Region, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 oFN�PAP November 25, 1998 Ms. Cindy Kirchoff tit City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive DEC 0 1998 P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Request - 9247 Lake Riley Blvd (Lot 42, Shore Acres), Lake Riley (10-2), City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Kirchoff: DNR Waters has reviewed the variance request site plan received 11/23/98 for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. The applicant is requesting variances for lakeshore setback(approximately 64 feet versus 75 feet) and for the minimum lot width for lake access. It also appears that a variance for the impervious surface may be required. We recommend that the city deny the current proposal. Specific comments follow: 1. The applicant needs to show the location of the ordinary high water elevation of 865.3' (NGVD, 1929), as located by a surveyor, so the actual proposed setback can be determined. 2. The setback of the homes on the adjoining lots should be determined. State guidelines do allow cities to permit a lakeshore setback that meets the average setback of the homes on adjoining lots without a variance. While Chanhassen does not have this exemption language in its Shoreland Management regulations, it is a criteria that is commonly used to help determine the question of hardship. It's my understanding that the average setback of the neighboring properties is 70 feet; if that is accurate, DNR Waters would expect that setback to be met. 3. It appears that the impervious surface exceeds the city's maximum allowed percentage. The applicant should be required to document the proposed impervious surface percentage. 4. We do not see a demonstration of hardship. A slightly smaller house could meet the city's standards and still provide for reasonable use of the property. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: a. The proposed use is reasonable. DNR Information: 6I2-296-6157. 1-SOO-766-6(100 • TTY:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 \n 1{qu.il 01in rIunits Clntl`lo,cr ft Printed on Recscled Pope Cont.nning V\ho Aaluc.Uiccr,in till Minimum of 10< Post-Con,unter A\a,te Cindy Kirchoff November 25, 1998 Page 2 b. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties prevent conformance; economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. c. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property. d. The problem must not be created by the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 5. In regards to the variance for the lot width required for access, we have no comment as long as: (a) this was a lot of record when the city adopted shoreland regulations, and (b) the lot has been under separate ownership from the adjoining lots since shoreland regulations were adopted. The courts have said that the applicant has a"heavy burden of proof' to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department is to be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. If the current proposal is approved, copies of the hearing minutes, findings of fact and other relevant documents should also be forwarded. Please contact me at (651) 772-7914 should you have questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer City of Chanhassen Shoreland File •.ummerf = - .. I! NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 40 '�'� _� ARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS � � �: �ie ♦ �riima Tuesday, January 12, 1999 w '* onsgt ��, •Rat 6:00 p.m. amirorea et.Q., City Hall Council Chambers , n _ ._ _ OU � .i 690 City Center Drive •IIIL1t0 £. Liti7/114IF 11 � *4 Air it iv PROJECT: Front and Side Yard, Lot Area, Lot Width & Lakeshore Access MI Lake Riley Variances INI 0 APPLICANT: Bob and Brinn Witt MI LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicants, Brinn and Bob Witt, are requesting a variance from the 20,000 sq. ft. lakeshore lot — area requirement, 90 ft. minimum lot width requirement, 30 foot front yard setback requirement, 10 foot side yard setback requirement, and a 75 foot lake shore access requirement for the construction of a single family home on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 42, Shore Acres. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Board of Adjustments Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Board discusses project. The Board will then make a decision. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. _.,.- d SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS RICHARD MADORE STEVEN & RENEE WILLIAMS C/O S.SEKELY 381 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9291 KIOWA TRAIL 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DALE KUTTER PAUL&GAIL TERRY SCOTT&SUSAN BABCOCK 301 DEERFOOT TRAIL 400 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9351 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT D REBERTUS PETER PEMRICK EDWIN DOMKE 320 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 1980 STANICH COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 EDINA RELOCATION JAMES& PATRICIA DOLEJSI GORDON &CASEY ALEXANDER MARY BROWN 9260 KIOWA TRAIL 6895 SAND RIDGE ROAD 1400 S HWY 100 STE 200 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 ROBERT EVANS TODD PORTER GORDON&CASEY ALEXANDER JR. 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9261 KIOWA TRAIL 9225 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAMELA GUYER RON FRIGSTAD RON YTZEN 340 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9270 KIOWA TRAIL 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN & PATRICIA SEKELY BARRY BERSHOW FREDERICK POTTHOFF 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9271 KIOWA TRAIL 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT MURRAY JAMIE HEILICHER SCOTT JOHNSON 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9280 KIOWA TRAIL 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT WIRTH CRAIG HALVERSON PAUL OLSON 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEVIN SHARKEY CRAIG &KATHRYN HALVERSON JOY A. SMITH 380 DEERFOOT TRAIL 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUCILLE REMUS '9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD '.NHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES F.JESSUP 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD W SITTER 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1998 Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steven Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION,RALPH AND PATRICIA HEGMAN, 3311 SHORE DRIVE. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Berquist asked what the setback is from the drainfield. Kirchoff responded that a error was made on the site plan and that the drainfield does not exist. Ralph Hegman stated the variance is required so a larger bedroom can be constructed on the main level. He explained that the garage only maintains a 7 foot setback and the addition will be maintaining that setback and not encroaching any further. Mr. Hegman stated the addition will look better on the eastern side and will be easier for them. He indicated that he is willing to work on the erosion control issues. Berquist asked if the proposed addition meets the lakeshore setback. He also questioned what was impeding the addition from being extended towards the lake. Patricia Hegman stated the living room and kitchen are located on that side of the home. Mr. Hegman asked if the Board would like to view pictures of the site. Berquist stated that the hill does not appear to have a 50 percent slope as the staff report states. Kirchoff responded that it does not meet the definition of a bluff. Berquist asked if there is home to the east. Mr. Hegman stated the house has been demolished and is being rebuilt. Berquist commented that the drainfield does not exist. Kirchoff responded that it was an error on the architect's part so a setback is not required. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes December 22, 1998 Page 2 Berquist commented that city water and sewer is available to the site. Mr. Hegman stated the site plan was drawn off an old plat. Berquist stated that he does not want to see the use intensified because it is currently non- conforming. He explained that the side yard setback ensures privacy. He commented that he understands the request, however, he believes the addition should go up or to the lake. He stated he would like to see the addition meet the 10 foot side yard setback. Hegman stated if the addition is reduced to meet the side yard setback it will be a tunnel and will not be feasible. Berquist stated that he is undecided about this variance. Willard Johnson stated that he feels similar and would like to see the addition meet the required side yard setback. He believes there are other alternatives. Carol Watson stated that there is land, but it is not where they would like to place the addition. She explained that she understands their perspective. Berquist asked if the applicant had considered purchasing property from the neighbor to the east. Mr. Hegman stated that he has not. Berquist stated that the additional 3 feet would solve the problem. Mr. Hegman stated that 3 feet is really trivial. He stated that the neighboring probably will not be subdivided in the future so encroaching into the setback would not be harmful. Berquist stated that it would be mutually beneficial for the applicant to consider purchasing the additional property. Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to table the application. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A REQUEST FOR A 7,000 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 15,000 SQ. FT. LOT AREA REQUIREMENT, A 50 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 90 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT, A 5.2 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE NORTH 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, A 7.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM SOUTH 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND A 1 PERCENT VARIANCE -� Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes December 22, 1998 Page 3 FROM THE 25 PERCENT MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION,JOAN WRIGHT, 6640 LOTUS TRAIL Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Berquist asked why a summary of the approved variances was not included within the report. Kirchoff responded that there are too many variances to set forth a fair comparison. Berquist asked if there were any neighbor comments. Kirchoff responded that a few neighbors had contacted the city upon the receipt of the meeting notice. Joan Wright stated that their only other option was to add a second story and that will increase the cost. She explained how they planned to purchase Lots 643 and 673. Berquist asked if the lots were for sale. Wright stated the owners of the property cannot be found and her attorney is tracing the heirs. Berquist asked if the property is purchased variances will still be required. Wright responded that variances will still be required. Kirchoff stated that the property will have 3 front yards. Johnson asked if the applicant knows the property owner. Wright responded that she does not. Watson stated that the applicant should contact Carver County. Wright stated that after much research not much has been found regarding the property owner. Kirchoff asked if the applicant was contacted by the city about purchasing the lots for public facilities. Wright indicated that the city will need a water easement. Johnson asked if the structure will have to maintain a setback from Napa Drive. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes December 22, 1998 Page 4 Kirchoff responded that if the city purchases the vacant lots, a front yard will not be required. Watson stated that they will be just encroaching into a vacant lot. Berquist stated that if the property to the south is owned by a private party it will pay taxes. Watson suggested that the Board wait on voting on the variance until the applicant acquires the property. Wright stated that it will be a long process before the owner is found. Berquist suggested that staff contact the city attorney to determine if the property can be conveyed to Ms. Wright. Watson asked how long it will take before the property can be sold. Johnson stated that if no taxes are paid, Carver County can sell the property. Wright stated that the tax forfeiture has been in the process for some time. Wright asked if the addition could be increased in depth and decreased in width. Kirchoff responded that the addition would have to meet all building code requirements. Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to table the variance application. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated December 1, 1998. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Johnson moved, Watson seconded the motion to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I