Loading...
1998 06 30CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 30, 1998 Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Steven Berquist and Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ENCLOSED PORCH, BLAIR AND NANCY ENTENMANN, 8372 STONE CREEK DRIVE Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Steve Berquist asked what the dotted line signifies on the plat. Cynthia Kirchoff responded that the lines were easements. Chris Winter stated that the home placement was dominated by the physical features and the Bluff Creek. She explained that they had to reduce the size of the hallway 6 inches for the house to fit on the lot. Berquist requested a definition of a rear yard. Kirchoff indicated that a rear yard is the opposite of the front yard. She went on to say that the fi'ont yard abuts the street. Ms. Winter stated that they are not building the porch to increase the value but utilize their back yard. She explained that they have many large trees in the rear yard and that they do not want to remove them for a porch. Ms. Winter stated that the switching the deck and the porch would not work because the porch would look into the half-bath. Carol Watson stated that she would like to make this plan work without a large variance. Berquist questioned if the rear yard could be redefined as a side yard because of the large bluff creek setback. Kirchoff responded that the setback is for planning and zoning purposes. Berquist stated that topography and elevation should determine setbacks. Willard Johnson stated that it is not the fault of the City that the homeowners built this home. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 2 Berquist requested that the rear yard be redef'med as the side yard. Watson asked if the setback from the enclosed porch is 19 feet. Kirchoff responded that it is 19 feet. Berquist stated that the applicants should place the porch on the back of the house. Ms. Winter stated that their daughter's bedroom is in the ground level on the back of the house and the porch would affect the amount of light entering the room. Kim Beauclair, contractor, stated that the future owner's concerns are important however, he believes that an open deck would not impose on a neighboring property. Watson asked if the porch on the back of the house would be an option. Mr. Winter responded that windows are present in that area of the house. He stated that the windows are not the same size as a patio door. Mr. Beauclair indicated the existing trees in the rear yard will block the view of the structure. Berquist stated that this is a very wooded lot. Mr. Beauclair asked if the porch could be constructed if does not block the neighbor's view. Mr. Winter stated that the porch will be 3-season, never a four-season. Berquist stated that he would like to approve this variance by reorienting the setback. Johnson stated that he would like to see the porch go out the back. Mr. Winter stated that he has invested a large amount of money into the rear yard and does not want to construct the porch there. Berquist stated that he would like to fred a viable way to change the interpretation of the side yard. Kirchoff responded that the City Attorney would have to be consulted regarding this interpretation. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 3 Watson stated that she would like to table the request so that the matter may be discussed further. Berquist asked the applicants if they would object to the variance being tabled until the July 14th meeting. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to table the application until the July 14th meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A REOUEST FOR AN 18.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT BLUFF PROTECTION SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK, BILL AND LINDA JANSEN, 240 EASTWOOD COURT Kirchoffpresented the report on this item. Berquist asked if the deck is proposed to be attached to the home. Kirchoff responded that the deck will be attached to the home. Berquist questioned the significance of the setback. Kirchoff responded that the setback intends to protect the bluff from erosion. Bill Jansen stated that the deck project for the deck began in 1995 when permit was approved for a deck that they decided not to construct. He noted that it was approved because of the staff oversight of the bluff protection setback. Mr. Jansen stated that staff did not inform them that the deck did not meet the setback. He asked that the City maintain its commitment that was made in 1995. Mr. Jansen stated that the current proposal is consistent with the intentions of the bluff setback. He explained that they decided to build the deck now because they have created a environmentally-friendly design. Mr. Jansen stated that the house addition was completed in 1995 based upon the idea that they can built a deck in the future. He stated that the current proposal is consistent with what the bluff setback intentions. Mr. Jansen also explained that they would not feel comfortable constructing their original proposal because of the excessive amount of hard surface. Linda Jansen stated that they revised their plans so that the bluff and existing environment would not be disturbed. Mr. Jansen stated that he disagrees with staffs findings in the report. He stated that they do have a hardship because the deck project is incomplete. He believes that they should not take the full responsibility of the hardship. He stated further that this proposal is much more environmentally-friendly. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 4 Ms. Jansen explained that the proposed deck and landscaping intends to preserve the properly and the bluff. Mr. Jansen stated that the deck will not be visible from neighboring property because the majority of the deck is located on the ground. He requested permission to complete the project that he obtained permission for in 1995. Berquist asked when the bluff setback was adopted and when the permit for the original deck was approved. He stated that the setback was not enforced on the original application so this variance should be automatically approved. Kirchoff responded that the bluff setback was adopted city-wide in 1994 and that the building permit for the deck was incorrectly approved because the topography was not indicated on the survey. Watson stated that the variance should not be an automatic approved because the deck can be designed smaller. Berquist stated that there are neighbors with concerns about the variance. Watson asked if the applicants could make the deck smaller. Ms. Jansen indicated that the deck was as small as possible. Berquist asked what was the size of deck that was approved. Kirchoff responded that it was 14 feet in depth. Ms. Jansen stated that a lower patio was planned when the building permit for the deck and addition was approved in 1995. Berquist asked if the patio would have been approved. Kirchoff stated that it would not have been approved because it does not meet the setback. Mr. Jansen stated it is irrelevant. Berquist stated that he was determining if a patio must meet the bluff setback. He asked if the deck would have footings. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Jansen stated that the deck would have pier footings and it would be attached to the house. Watson asked if the lower was deemed a structure. Kirchoff stated that it is a structure. Ms. Jansen stated that they intend to protect the bluff and that the deck would change the situation. She stated that they will be installing vegetation that will prevent erosion. Berquist stated that he would like to approve the variance based upon the hardship that the city approval in 1995 created. Watson stated that the prior city approval did not create a commitment to this variance. Berquist stated that he was committed to approve the variance because it is similar in size to the original deck. Watson stated that she is committed to the lower deck, but she would like to see it smaller. Johnson asked if the deck could float. Kirchoff stated that it still would be a structure. Ms. Jansen stated that if deck is made wider and the depth is decreased, it still will not change the erosion of the bluff. Watson asked if something can be placed under the deck to improve the soil so that it can retain moisture. Berquist asked what the applicant was planning to do to prevent erosion. Ms. Jansen stated that they will improve the soil and plant shade tolerant plants to hold the soil. Berquist asked if they can place restrictions on installing erosion control plantings. Ms. Jansen stated that they plan to install landscape fabric and improve the soils. Watson asked if the applicant is committed to these activities. Ms. Jansen stated that they are committed to improving the soils. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 30, 1998 Page 6 Berquist stated that the improved soil will protect and improve the bluff. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve an 18.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback requirement for the construction of a deck with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall improve the permeability of the soil under the lower deck. 2. Install Type II erosion control until vegetation has been fully restored on the site. 3. The applicant shall alter the vegetation in the bluff impact zone based upon the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' best management practices. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to close the public hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated May 12,1998. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I