9. Varience Request 931 Saddlebrook Trail, Matthew Hoffman1
1
1
1
L
1
t
1
1
MEMORANDUM
9,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeal AdIa 5V aw Afthm"
City Council WolWx1.
Don Ashworth, City Manager �--- --
FROM: John Rask, Planner I go sib m cam*"
DATE: February 8, 1995 9rbmit�te b cauadl
02-13-
SUBJ: Variance Appeal, Matthew Hoffr
LOCATION: 931 Saddlebrook Trail
Lot 16, Block 6, Saddlebrook
REQUEST
Matthew Hoffman, the applicant, is rectesting a 6 'fz fort variance from the ten (10) foot side
yard setback requirement for the conduction of a shed ' ;6 feet from the west property
line. The property is located at 9 Trail inRSF, Single Family Residential
zoned district.
BACKGROUND A `
Matthew Hoffma,� .•: i � t ? ,� eny., a building permit
for a shed at five�etfom the side property line. Mr. Hoffman a�egec `he ,N`r "informed that
the setback would be five " ° f t" from the west ro ert line. �"
On January 9, 1995, the Board of Adjustmen an )[' pp Mr. Hoffman's appeal and
affirmed the staff order to have the shed movtd at least ten (10) feet from the side property
line or have the shed removed from the prop W11 11 The vote was a simple majority vote, and
thus served only as a recommendation to the city council.
On January 23, 1995, the City Council considered Mr. Hoffman's appeal and determined that
the alleged error may warrant the granting of a variance. Several council members indicated
that they would support a variance to allow a shed at five (5) feet from the side lot line.
February 8, 1995
Hoffman Variance Appeal
Page 2
Council directed Mr. Hoffman to apply for a variance.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
1. Section 20 -615 (5) (c) states that the setback for side yards is ten (10) feet.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the shed by two (2) feet so that he can leave
the base of the shed in the same location and still maintain a 3 % foot setback from the wall
of the structure. The floor of the shed would still be located 18" from the property line. This
proposal does not meet applicable building: code The building code requires storage
structures to be setback three feet and permits projections to encroach % the distance to the
property line (a 12" projection in this case) provided the projection is of one hour fire
resistive construction. In no case shall any part of the building be located closer than two (2)
feet from a property line. A 6 Ih foot variance from the ten foot side yard setback would
still be required.
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 (Sec. 20 -58. General conditions for
granting.):
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surrounding, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a
majority of comparable property 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.
Finding: All homes and accessory structures within 500 feet meet applicable
setback requirements.
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: This petition is based on an alleged error by city staff, and is an attempt '
to correct the existing situation.
1
LI
r
1
1
February 8, 1995
Hoffman Variance Appeal
Page 3
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: The purpose of the variation is to allow the applicant to finish
construction of the shed at the present location.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self- created hardship.
Finding: Staff considers the hardship to be self created.
The applicant ascertains that he proceeded with good faith based on
information he received from city staff.
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 12 x 16 foot shed should not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, because
the shed is located towards the rear of the lot and away from other
homes and structures.
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 increases the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair the
property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation would not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property because the shed would be located at least
30 feet from any adjoining residence. The location of the shed should
not endanger public safety or diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals deny the appeal as
requested. However, the Board may wish to consider granting a five (5) foot variance.
Staff recommends that the Board deny the request for a 6 Ih foot variance for the following
reasons:
February 8, 1995
Hoffman Variance Appeal
Page 4
1. Neither the size, shape, or topography of the lot prevents the placement of a shed at
ten (10) feet or greater from the side property line.
2. The applicants failure to locate the property lines is a self created hardship.
3. A 6 �6 foot variance would be inconsistent with the surrounding development as all
other principal and accessory structures meet applicable setback requirements.
4. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and garage.
The Board may wish to consider the following:
Approval of a Five Foot Variance
The City Council indicated they would consider a variance allowing the shed to be
constructed at five (5) feet from the west property line because of the alleged error by city
staff.
If the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves the variance, the Board may wish to base
their decision on the following findings:
1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood because the shed is located at least
30 feet from surrounding structures.
2. The applicant proceeded, in good faith, to construct the floor of the shed based on
information received from city staff.
3. The applicant obtained incorrect information from city staff.
Attachments
1. Application dated January 24, 1995
2. Site Plan
3. City Council minutes dated January 23, 1995.
4. Notice of Public Hearing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: // •ll•— lr,^ U, OWNER:
` �� ��' -, fry �-< /
ADDRESS: ADDRESS: % _i � .
1
L�
�I
1
1
TELEPHONE (Day time) �"l - - j`-° TELEPHONE:
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.„ Variance
3.
Interim Use Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Non - conforming Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost'
$100 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10.
Subdivision
TO
Q FEE $
E' _ t OF C,•�''�'c /
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION ,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
zc
PRESENT ZONING ✓C `�
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST r✓ S r
V,;, /\/ `-�!Y/ ``" , Y'G 7� 'Gti;� 7 /F' {7,;�.. <:-f ✓t Ti,J,^ �' "/ w
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 approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
Signature of Applicant Date
3 �f
Signatufe of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on
Fee Paid 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.
J
r s
r
flefA I [•
q ��3 • O
42( �e!41
3
°
a4 13a R�b'� cR-� 3?,c'6
$ _
♦ _ - s � ♦, 9 �' dam+ i I \ � �
5
0 4 It
ell 1-11 1964
to
10 0 ,
o
s Xz o
o Denotes'
X000.0 Denotes I ition = 1005•4
1000.01 Denotes Q p- e- f' V Q r ,I c A 0 V-7 N = too-5.0
-4 Denotes = = ` A
I hereby certiJ�' r u G `I-��11^� b Ll I y- 4C VV Q, c,�`� undaries of:
L 1 ,
1
S a dck 1. brook 1
And of the lo if any, f om
or on said Ian
7725
+<<•s SJj, 2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
SATHRE- BERGOUIST, INC. for '
= 106 SOUTH BROADWAY • WAYZATA MN 55391 FRONTIER COMPANIES
TELEPHONE612.476.600O
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. And that's to include the review of the heavy metals.
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Interim Use Permit #94 -3 as
described herewith and shown on the attached figures, subject to the following conditions:
1. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained.
2. Erosion control measures shall be in place, where necessary, prior to site grading and be maintained until
the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the City.
3. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the
Watershed District.
4. Since the applicant is the City, all fees associated with the permitted shall be waived.
5. Haul routes will be designed and approved by City staff.
6. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved entrances only. The City will be
required to keep haul routes clean of dirt and mud, etc. Any damage to streets, curb or other public
facilities shall be repaired by the City.
7. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday
with no work occurring on holidays.
8. This IUP shall terminate on July 1, 1995.
9. The materials taken from the wetland shall be tested heavy metals.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason was not present to vote, and the motion carried.
APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SHED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE 931 SADDLEBROOK TRAIL, MATTHEW HOFFMAN.
John Rask: Matthew Hoffman, the applicant is appealing a decision of the planning process denying a building
permit for a shed. The appeal is based on a alleged error by city staff. The property is located at 931
Saddlebrook Trail in a single family residential zoned district. Just to give you background of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals last meeting. January 9th the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied Mr.
23
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Hoffman's appeal and affirmed the staff order to have the shed moved at least 10 feet from the side property
line or have the shed removed from the property. The vote was a simple majority vote. Therefore the votes
serves only as a recommendation to the City Council, who shall then make the final determination on the
appeal. To give you a little background on this situation. On December 2nd the applicant submitted a building
permit application for a 12 x 16 foot shed. At this time the applicant discussed setback information with the
city building inspectors. The applicant alleges he was informed by the inspector that the setback would be 5
feet from the west property line. The applicant did not receive approval or obtain a permit for the construction
of the shed at 5 feet. On December 7th the city planning department reviewed the permit and discovered that
the shed did not meet applicable setback requirements. The applicant was immediately notified of the situation
at which time it was discovered that the floor of his shed had been constructed and a stop work order was then
issued on December 7th. On January 9th staff conducted an on site inspection to determine the exact location
of the shed. At this time it was discovered that the floor of this shed was approximately 18 inches from the lot
line and was in a drainage and utility easement. The applicant's appeal is based on the following: (a), proper
application and plans were submitted; (b), incorrect information was obtained from the Public Safety
Department; (c), the applicant proceeded to set level base work before actual approval of the permit based on
good faith that the building inspectors knew the applicable city code; and (d), Mr. John Rask made an
agreement that was not followed through with. Staff then directed the applicant to move the shed at least 10
feet from the side property line and submit revised plans so that a permit may be issued or have the shed
removed from the property. Staff finds that the applicant proceeded to construct the floor of the shed without
first obtaining a permit. Discussing applicable requirements with city staff does not abrogate the need to obtain
a permit. The applicant was instructed not to proceed without first getting a permit. Therefore staff would
recommend the City Council affirm the Board of Adjustments decision to deny the appeal and have the
applicant move the shed at least 10 feet from the side property line. I'd be happy to answer any questions at
this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions of staff?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have. If I can succintly say what happened. They're required to put it 10 feet
off the property line. He thought he was told 5 feet, but it is currently 18 inches.
John Rask: Correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is there any way that the floor of the shed can be moved currently or is it like
poured concrete?
John Rask: No ... the floor of the shed is on block. There's no concrete.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it could be moved.
John Rask: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Could I maybe add something, since we did have it on the Board of Adjustments or
whatever. I guess I'm the reason it's here tonight, because the other two people voted to deny it and I voted to
not deny it. Maybe I have an overly simplistic way of looking at things but if you read the ordinance, the guy
got some erroneous information so in my mind he is, and I don't think anybody's disputing that either. I mean
there was erroneous information given out. So I think at that point I think he's entitled at least to be here and
ask that the exception or the variance be made. The moving factor in my mind, and I don't know how many of
24
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
you got a chance to go out and look at it but basically this is a corner lot. You know being on the corner like
he is, he's basically abutting two other parcels. Two other properties. What it all comes down to is the
neighbor where he's putting the shed doesn't mind the shed being there. In fact he'd just as soon back another
shed up to it so they can both put their sheds there, and quite honestly it makes their yards a lot more attractive
and a lot less impact because, and to me the whole thing just really a lot of sense as to a way to proceed. The
deck is not permanent. I mean it can be picked up and moved to the 5 feet or whatever and I sat there and I
looked at his yard and I was just out at the road and I paced off like 10 feet and said, geez it's kind of like
putting a shed in the middle of your yard. Now I could really understand that if again, if the neighbor wanted it
that way or objected but the fact that they're kind of really together on this and it's not going to impact anybody,
it just seemed to me that again it really made a lot of sense to go ahead and okay it and do it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Does it have an affect on the drainage and utility easement at all?
John Rask: No, it doesn't impact the easement. It's right on the edge.
Councilman Senn: And if it ever did, I mean.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Move it. Pick it up and move it.
Councilman Senn: Move it, yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Well knowing that it's 18 inches from the property line, I mean to me it would seem to
make sense to come in and ask for a variance to get it within 5 feet.
Councilman Senn: That's what he's doing.
Councilman Berquist: No. Didn't he, did I misunderstand?
Councilman Senn: The 18 inches is an error.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, but he's saying fine, I'll move it 5 feet away?
Councilman Senn: That's my understanding.
John Rask: Correct. He may want to verify that.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to clarify one point. He's not in for a variance. Staff discussed with him getting a
variance and he said, no. I'm quoting staff. He did not want a variance. There is no variance request being
made.
Councilman Berquist: So he's asking for it to be left there?
Roger Knutson: Right. He is saying staff, he is appealing the decision of the staff. The staff is telling him to
move it. He is appealing that decision and saying staff is wrong. Staff, Council should be instructing staff that
the building should not move. That the staff is wrong. There is no variance request. There has been no
variance advertised.
25
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Councilman Senn: But my understanding in Board of Adjustments and Appeals was, I thought the issue we're
dealing with is that everybody was willing to put it 5 feet away and everybody was happy with that.
Roger Knutson: That could be. I'm just clarifying what the procedural posture is here. There is no variance
before you.
Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is, this was just picked up by the building inspection department?
Roger Knutson: Staff has told him move it because you're not in compliance with the zoning ordinance and he
has appealed that decision ordering him to move it.
Councilman Senn: My understanding from the Board, when we heard it is the 18 inches was accidental because
it was a matter of where everybody thought the property line was, did it not, and that's why it's 18 inches rather
than 5 feet. The original plan was always for 5 feet, as I understood it. And that's what everybody kind of just
said geez, that's fine. Or I mean that's what I was saying.
Councilman Berquist: Well what's right? I mean are you applying for a variance? Or do you want the thing
left there?
Matthew Hoffman: I guess if you take my opinion right now, I'll give it to you and you guys can...
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone. Matt, would you come up to the mic please.
Matthew Hoffman: I'm the applicant I guess. John was right. It's pretty much the way he's got it. The whole
problem here has been since December 2nd or there abouts, discussing with staff the ground was going to
freeze. They told me it was going to be 2 weeks before they'd get that permit process. I said at that point in
time the ground is going to be froze too hard. I don't be able to set any kind of a base work for it that I had
intended on doing the work necessary on what they told me. They proceeded to tell me that the applicable code
was 5 feet. They looked at the plat. They discussed it between the two inspectors. They are the enforcement
of the city code and ordinance. They should know. That's my whole final thing. You should be able to at
least ask and take into consideration ... work that needed to be done and I stopped. Went no farther. Waited for
the rest of the permit. Then at that point in time is when we started having problems with this. Staff has
admitted that they told me 5 feet. Both, I think the inspection department and John are in agreement with that,
aren't you John?
John Rask: Yeah I.
Matthew Hoffman: Everybody's pretty much in agreement that they've admitted that that's the way it is, right?
John Rask: Yeah I.
Matthew Hoffman: It's on top, it's noted on top of the building permit application if you look at it. When I
was in for the original application. I guess this is all started from December and I haven't done a thing about it.
Councilman Berquist: Could I ask you a question?
Matthew Hoffman: You bet.
LJ
' City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Councilman Berquist: What do you want? Do you want to leave it there or do you want to move it 5 feet from
' the property line?
Matthew Hoffman: I have said from the start it could be 5 feet. I'd just as soon leave it where it is. The
' neighbor would just as soon leave it where it is. If it needs to be 5 feet, it will be moved to 5 feet. It's a
perfectly capable of it. There's a sandbox in the way right now but it can be put to that point. It may involve a
little extra work in the spring but it's not going to go anywhere until then anyhow.
' Councilman Berquist: So then this is a variance request right?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, it would have to go back for a variance. Let me clarify something, hold on. Legally if
you were to sell your property and leave it at that 5 feet, and a variance has not been granted, whoever may
come back in and may find what that ordinance is would then, would they have quarrel with that property
owner to move it back? If technically we have not granted a variance for 5 feet. There's nothing there.
Roger Knutson: He could have a problem with the title company saying it's an encroachment on an existing
easement. Even if you grant a variance, that easement remains there. That in and of itself could create a
concern for some title insurance companies or some lawyers reviewing the title. That's one issue. And the
' second issue would not be in conformance with the setback requirements or the zoning ordinance. And he's
never been granted a variance. Just to comment briefly on the variance issue. Under our zoning ordinance, if
you want a variance, there has to be a hearing proceeded by published notice and mailed notices before the
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals and that has never happened so I think.
Matthew Hoffman: It has been published though before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
' Roger Knutson: Not for a variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Notification of adjacent property owners have not been notified.
' Roger Knutson: If you want to grant a variance, you have to start the process over again. So yeah, there'd be 2
concerns. First, that he's in a drainage and utility easement and second, because no variance has been granted.
But those are again private concerns.
' Councilman Senn: But the property owners were notified of what came to us at the Board of Adjustments. I
mean it's not that they're unfamiliar with the issue.
' Mayor Chmiel: Was there a notification sent out to all adjacent property owners?
' John Rask: No...
Councilman Berquist: Well my interpretation of this is, I mean I'm reading this and I'm thinking why are you
here?
Matthew Hoffman: I'm here because city staff gave me the wrong.
' Councilman Berquist: Now wait a minute. I'm reading, when I read this on Thursday when I got my packet,
I'm reading this and I'm thinking why are you here. You built.
1 27
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Matthew Hoffman: I'm here because.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a second. You built without a permit and you built within 18 inches of the
property line. Now you're telling me this was before the Board of Adjustments and you denied it but he's here
telling, he's here asking to build, to move the thing to 5 feet away. Well.
Councilman Senn: Until Roger just said what he said, I was confused too because I'm serious. At the Board of
Adjustments we sat there thinking we were deciding between a 5 foot or a 10 foot variance. Or I mean a 5 foot
variance or no variance. Okay. And that's really what we thought we were acting on. I would say now given
what Roger has said, I think he ought to just go back and apply for the variance to the 5 feet and come back
through you know maybe with some indication from the Council that we don't see maybe a big problem with it.
I don't know. I mean either you do or you don't. But it just, to me it was one of these things and Board of
Adjustments was kind of getting out of hand because I mean let's face it, there was mistakes on both parts so
okay, so I mean you can sit up there all night and do a finger pointing contest and you know you can say well
staff told me this wrong and staff can say yeah but he started construction before the building permit and I mean
like I say, I mean you can sit and argue about that all night long and my whole, tonight when I saw it on the
agenda was to kind of avoid that whole argument again and just say what really makes sense here and let's do it
rather than get into arguing over who did or didn't do what.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, if I may. I'd just say, leave it where it is and it's your future concern when
you sell your piece of property with the title company.
Matthew Hoffman: As far as I'm concerned, it's got no footings. It's perfectly unattached. I'm perfectly
comfortable with it and so is all the attached and unattached neighbors within a reasonable distance. So I have
no problem with where it is and the neighbors are all ... and I've been waiting for 2 months to clean my garage
out some. You know whatever the staff, whatever Council. I guess my thing out of the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments is you guys ... whether it's a variance or just whatever. I really don't know what.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it could provide a hassle for you when you sell that house. And if you have the
legalities to it.
Matthew Hoffman: Yeah, and if I need to, if it needs to be picked up and moved, it's my problem at that point
in time. I'm aware of that and fully confident that it can be done and will be done.
Councilman Senn: I have no problems with what Colleen is suggesting, but I guess if we do take that route I
would prefer that we stick a stipulation on there that we get a letter from the immediate neighbor just saying
that it's okay with him. Since public notice did not get mailed directly to him, and make sure that that's in the
file and you know basically then we're set for now and in the future he may have to move it and he knows that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Well if it's easy to move now or easy to move later, why don't we do it now?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because it may not be necessary later.
28
7
L
r
L
I
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Matthew Hoffman: I feel it's in the right place for the yard. For the way the layout of the land goes, I feel it's
where it's needed to go and where it's best for everybody. I think, you know Mark's been out there and I think
he's kind of in agreement.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. During Board of Adjustments I kind of likened it to wonderful, I mean I kind of
went back to the old example, ordinances I think are nice guidelines but they don't always cover every situation
and I love to think of my own front yard which has I think about 4 or 5 neighbors' sheds bordering my front
yard and I could care less whether they're 10 feet back or 5 feet back, I think they're an atrocity to my front
yard. Okay, but the ordinance allows them. Whoopy. You know in this situation what they're talking about
doing in terms of backing their sheds up to each other and the way their lot sits and where they're on, I mean to
me it's exactly the solution that should be there. It's what deserves to be done to you know, I'm going to say,
treat both of their yards nicely or the neighborhood even nicely and from that standpoint it was real hard for me
to sit there and start worrying about the finer points.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yes Kate.
Kate Aanenson: ...John brought up another issue. There is a ... requirement to stay away from property line
building code issue. I don't know if the applicant's aware of that. We were told by the building department that
if you're closer than 3 feet, than it has to have a fire wall on it. Those are things that are outside of our
jurisdiction ... but just so he's aware of that. There are other building code issues that...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Who's jurisdiction is that?
Kate Aanenson: Building department. Building code.
Don Ashworth: If I may Mr. Mayor, I don't think the Council has a right to waive a building safety code. If
there's a requirement. And I know that associated with sheds, you've got gasoline and all the rest, what you're
really doing is saying you can put that closer and potentially it becomes a problem for the neighbor, so they
want to have a fire wall there. And what you're talking about is, it's an extra sheet of sheet rock. They have to
go to like 5/8 versus whatever. But that's fine, if it has to be 3 feet, we can just...
Kate Aanenson: I just wanted you to be aware that there is a building code issue.
Councilman Senn: But can't we just say then, as far as we're concerned it can stay where it's at as long as it
meets applicable building code regulations and then at that point he's going to have to slide it over to meet that
and who cares. We don't have to go through a whole big process. Are you shaking yes? That's fine. Okay.
Roger Knutson: You wouldn't want to waive the building fire safety code issues. If something might be were
to happen and you did.
Mayor Chmiel: We're liable.
Councilman Senn: Well he said he was willing to slide it back 5 feet away from our previous discussion so I
mean I don't see why that shouldn't be an easy one to accomplish if we move it back.
Matthew Hoffman: It just won't be done until spring.
29
11
1
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be the most advisable. Just to move it that 5 feet.
Matthew Hoffman: It will take out the sandbox.
Mayor Chmiel: Or relocate the sandbox. I know I've done that a couple times myself.
Councilman Berquist: I guess the way I look at this, you're asking for approval for your screw up.
Matthew Hoffman: I'm asking for approval because I received the wrong information.
Councilman Berquist: You're the one that put it 18 inches from the property line sir.
Matthew Hoffman: Yeah but if you look, the only construction ... is at the final and that's the only place that
really comes into play.
Councilman Berquist: You still put it 18 inches from the property line.
Mayor Chmiel: Setback, yeah.
Matthew Hoffman: Yeah. But it's not, it was like do I take the machine and dig up the 6 piece to find a pin on
my neighbor's property and my property. I have two corners and then replace it. Or do I take about where it is
and put it in place for the file.
Councilman Berquist: And err to the inside of the property line.
' Matthew Hoffman: ...property line then, if I needed to err, then the sandbox is going out and I'll deal with that
in the spring and... That was my, I mean my whole thing was that 2 weeks to be given approval for a building
permit where... seemed a little extensive when I was saying that there was some other ... and everything else and I
was very up front with them on what we needed to do and why we needed to do it and what the reasoning was
and I guess I'm being reasonable. I'm here tonight.
Councilman Berquist: But you are willing to move it within 5 feet away.
Matthew Hoffman: I'd like to move it, you know I'd like to leave it where it is ... but if you're not going to
allow that, then I've got to do whatever you...
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, Michael.
' Councilman Mason: I've been unusually quiet because I just got hammered like I never got hammered before
for a decision I made but that's part of the deal I guess. Question for Roger and a comment. If we let all of
this go and say well, that the homeowner's going to take whatever chances when they sell it, what will the
liabilities be for the city if someone decides to sue because all this stuff is here and there were no variances
' granted and somebody screwed up at the city so I don't like that it, when he goes to sell, if he goes to sell. Can
this in some arcane and bizarre way get back to us?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or a neighbor?
W
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Councilman Mason: Or a neighbor.
Councilman Senn: I can't wait to hear this answer from Roger.
Roger Knutson: ...people's ability to find reasons for suing cities is incredible. It's hard to speculate some
homeowners dream up with. I frankly get a bit more concerned about, is a neighbor who also wants to be
within 18 inches of the property line and that's down the block, the neighbor comes in and says, well you
approved this one 18 inches off. And it looks fine. It's great. It fits his yard. Me too? And then. And maybe
that's not bad but I think that's something you need, if you're going to accept it, to have the whole block with
sheds in the back, I mean so be it.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I'm concerned about that and I do not deny Mr. Hoffman that you were given
some incorrect information. My concern is I don't think two wrongs makes a right. And you did start building
that shed before your permit went through. Right, and I know you're not denying that. I'm not, you know I'm
not going to get into that. But I hear what Steve is saying on that too and I, you know I think we're in a time
in history or whatever, that everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions and I personally am concerned
about leaving it where it is just for some of the reasons that have been stated. But and I don't know. I don't
know.
Matthew Hoffman: Then I guess if the Council looks at it that way, I'd like to see some ... I mean that's what it
all boils down to.
Councilman Mason: You know that's true. However, had you waited and.
Matthew Hoffman: Oh definitely.
Councilman Mason: Well but see, had you waited until you had the permit, that would have been caught and it
wouldn't have happened. And that is where I think the responsibility of City Hall lays there. Had you waited
until you were supposed to, none of us would be in this fix right now.
Matthew Hoffman: I mean I've had so much time in this...
Councilman Mason: Well I understand that. I agree with you. You know and again I'm saying, had you
waited you wouldn't be here.
Matthew Hoffman: ...and had staff not commented, that's my.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm not going to deny that either but I think just like you need to accept some
responsibility, you know I'm not going to deny that staff does too.
Matthew Hoffman: No, I've said all along that, you know if I had started without the permit and no information
from staff, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I fully realize that and comprehend that. But being that staff did
comment, I feel like I have a right to be here tonight.
Councilman Mason: Well of course you have the right to be here. I'm not disputing that. But the fact remains,
even if you were given, well granted that you were given misinformation, none of this would have happened if
you would have waited until you have permit in hand.
31
' City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Councilman Senn: Well but, I'm sorry. I don't want to be the whatever here. I mean this all happened at the
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and that's not true because Steve sat there and said they probably still would
have missed it. I mean the whole issue wasn't they would have caught it just because he had a building permit,
one way or the other. The other information.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't want to get into who did ... but you guys let's do what makes sense
here. Alright, let's just get this over with and do what makes sense here. Move the shed 5 feet please.
!I
n
0
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Matthew Hoffman: 5 feet, do I need the variance then or do I need to go 5 feet and not going to sweat it?
Councilman Senn: Let's approve this thing with the stipulation that (a), he gets a letter from the neighbors sent
into us and secondly that he agrees to move it back to 5 feet. Is that okay Roger?
Mayor Chmiel: You know I don't want to suggest that we go through that process. Waive the fee for the
variance. Let him proceed with that. Bring it back to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and I think it's a
done deal.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Make it clean.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. We'll waive that application, or that fee for a variance, which is $50.00.
Don Ashworth: I don't know what it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Or whatever it is.
Councilman Mason: That should be waived, I agree with that.
Councilman Berquist: Did you get double fee'd for the building permit?
Matthew Hoffman: What's that?
Councilman Berquist: Did you get double fee'd for the building permit?
Matthew Hoffman: Not yet. Hope not. The only thing I've gotten so far is just a copy of the building permit
from John. That's all I've gotten.
Mayor Chmiel; Let's proceed with that. Go back to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Get the variances.
Either approve or denial and come back to City Council.
Councilman Senn: So do we need to make a motion to actually deny it tonight on that basis?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
32
G
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to deny the appeal.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Senn: I'll second it with the understanding we all have.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to deny the appeal of the administrative decision
denying a building permit for the construction of a shed on property located at 931 Saddlebwok Trail, and direct
the applicant to apply for a variance to construct the shed 5 feet from the side lot line, and that the variance fee
will be waived. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Senn: So now Matt, I'm sorry. I just want to make sure now. You understand you need to.
Matthew Hoffman: I have to go through the whole process again.
Councilman Senn: No, you just need to get the application in, at no fee. You'll be on the Board of
Adjustments. If they deny it, you'll be here before the Council and the Council's already told you what they
thing.
Mayor Chmiel: And the reason for me saying we are not going to have a fee is because of staff indicating that
5 feet was fine.
Councilman Senn: And we'll have it all done by spring when you're going to work on it anyway.
Matthew Hoffman: I'm fairly uncomfortable with the time frame but I guess I have to live with that.
Councilman Senn: Well we should have it all done by spring when he wants to go anyway.
Matthew Hoffman: Well I want to build it now, that's the only thing. That's the whole point in setting up the
base ... and being able to use it...
Mayor Chmiel: I know. I know exactly what you're saying. I might want to put one in my yard. Okay,
thanks.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL,
FIRST READING. THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES 5500.00 CASH ESCROW OR LETTER OF CREDIT TO
BE FURNISHED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED TO GUARANTEE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PLANS EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
Diane Desotelle: Mayor, Council members. As you all know erosion is a real problem in the city right now
with all the ... In order to try to prevent some of the poor water qualities from happening, we're trying our best to
enforce erosion control on construction... With the lack of staff and the difficulty in trying to enforce this, we're
trying to come up with a means... something to put our teeth into the ordinance. We looked at citations. We
33
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND
APPEALS
' Monday, February 13, 1995
6:30 P.M.
' City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
i Project: Side Yard Setback
Variance
Applicant: Matthew Hoffman
Location: 931 Saddlebrook Trail
LOCATION
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a variance proposed in your
area. The applicant requests a 6.5 foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a
shed on property zoned RSF and located 931 Saddlebrook Trail.
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 over view of the proposed project.
2. Comments are received from the public.
3. Public hearing is closed and the Board discusses project. The Board will then
take action on the proposal.
Questions or 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 John at 937 -1900, ext 117. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Board.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 2,
1995.
I ( r-r-7, m—T