5. Board of Adjustments, wetland Setback Variance at 251 Trappers Pass 1-----
t .
CITYOF
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
t- ✓ -1! A-
1 MEMORANDUM m_
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager /o-30 -1 /
IFROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I _. ;o - ,,-/-5/
THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: October 23, 1991 /t 5,
1
SUBJ: Appeal Decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
1 for Bob and Anna Santos
The applicant is requesting a 51 foot wetland setback variance for
11 had purpose of constructing a swimming pool (Attachment #1) . Staff
had recommended that the request be approved due to problems with
the wetland setback that stemmed from its erroneous location on the
original subdivision.
IOn October 14, 1991, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed
this item and recommended denial with a vote of two to one
I (Attachment #3) . Chairman Johnson and Board member Watson were
concerned with the level of chlorine in the water used in the
swimming pool and the effect it would have on the wetland.
1 Staff contacted Ms. Ceil Strauss with the Department of Natural
Resources and was informed that the DNR does not regulate swimming
pools. She did have some concern regarding high concentrations of
I chlorine dumped into the wetland. She recommended that the
swimming pool back wash equipment be located at a distance of 75
feet from the edge of the wetland. Staff also contacted the
1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and was informed that as long as
high concentrations of chlorine does not get into the wetland,
there should not be any harm done to the wetland.
I Watson's concern is legitimate although under normal conditions,
the pool would have been constructed maintaining a distance of 75
feet from the edge of the wetland, We want to point out that the
I pool ' s back wash equipment, which will be dispensing the water from
the pool into the wetland, is set at a distance of 75 feet from the
wetland. This means the water will travel the buffer distance,
I recommended by the DNR for all structures, before settling in the
wetland.
I
t t
I4i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
Santos Appeal
October 23 , 1991
Page 2
' Staff is recommending approval of the variance to construct the
swimming pool within 24 feet of the wetland. There is a reduced
setback standard established in the surrounding neighborhood.
Approval of this variance will not set a precedent nor establish
new reduced setbacks within the neighborhood. Based upon the above
and the staff report dated October 14, 1991, we are recommending
approval of this variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Variance request
#91-18 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant uses Type III erosion control along the edge of
the wetland.
' 2 . The applicant remove the sandbox/totlot located within the
utility and drainage easement and restore the wetland to its
original condition.
3 . The applicant shall re-establish vegetation in all areas
disturbed by the construction of the pool immediately after
work is completed and prior to final inspection.
' ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Letter from the applicant.
2 . Staff report dated October 14, 1991.
3 . Letter from Minnesota Department of Health Dated October 18,
1991.
4 . Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes dated October 14,
1991.
I
Robert & Anna Santos 111
251 Trappers Pass, Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 470-1992
October 28, 1991 1
Chanhassen City Council Members '
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear City Council Members:
Thank you for taking the time to review our request for a wetland setback '
variance at 251 Trappers Pass, Chanhassen.
Obviously, we were very disappointed by the Board of Adjustments and
Appeal's decision to not grant the variance. However, we feel our request
was not properly addressed by the Board and therefore ruled against on ,
inappropriate grounds. Of the three board members, only Mr. Workman was
able to focus on the issue at hand. Ms. Watson and Mr. Johnson digressed so
far off the issue that they "failed to see the forest for the trees".
Our understanding in asking for a variance was that the board may grant '
variances if a hardship is caused or if a precedent has already been
established in the area. However, as board members, Johnson and Watson,
discussed the issue their dialogue digressed into irrelevant matters.
Specifically, Mr. Johnson stated that a pool was not a necessary accessory
unlike perhaps a deck. And yet, the issue was not whether one grants a I
variance by the price or perception of the "accessory" but rather if denial of
the variance places us at a disadvantage or hardship as compared to other
homes in the neighborhood with accessory structures. Clearly, Mr. Johnson's
statement reflects his perception of a pool as a luxury one can do without.
We view his statement to be discriminatory and irrelevant grounds to '
formulate an opinion on.
Ms. Watson also digressed into an area which clearly should not have been ,
integral to the discussion for the setback variance. Although the disposal of
chlorinated water is a consequence of maintaining a pool, the environmental
impact of the flushed water has no relevance as to whether we suffer a
hardship and deserve a variance based on how Chanhassen has interpreted the
ordinance and has enforced it for other similar cases. (As an aside,
discharged pool water has no significant impact on our grounds.)
October 28, 1991 -City Council Members Page 2
City Council Members, as we formulate our appeal to you, I wish to stress the
key issues:
1. Are we getting comparable use for our lot?
' Several homes in the immediate area have already been granted
wetland setback variances for accessory structures. Although our
structure would be be approximately 24 feet from the wetland other
homes have accessory structures as close as 18 feet to the wetland,
with Chanhassen's approval.
2. The variance needs to be fairly applied to accessory structures.
' The councils interpretation needs to consider our request the same as
they would for a deck or tool shed or any other accessory structure.
' 3. Do we incur a hardship by not being granted a setback variance?
The majority of homes in the immediate area may add accessory
structures without having to meet setback guidelines. By enforcing
more stringent wetland setback guidelines on us versus our neighbors
we will remain at a tremendous disadvantage for comparable use of
our property.
'
During the appeal process, we ask that each of the you, the council members,
PP P � Y >
' focus your attention on the nature of our request and the issue. We ask that
you fairly evaluate and discuss our request without being prejudicial. We
implore you to use reasonable judgment in assessing our needs and the
' hardship we may suffer from your negative decision.
' As long time residents of Chanhassen, we appreciate and respect the beauty
and naturalness of our community. And, we respect the ordinances which
help to keep our growth and community in balance. It is Chanhassen's beauty,
progressiveness and sense of family which has made this community home.
This issue is tremendously important to us and our children because it
jeopardizes our dream to get maximum enjoyment from our home and
community.
' Cordially,
Robert & Anna Santos
C I T Y O F BOA DATE: 10/14/91
\ CIIMTHA! EN 11 CC DATE:
CASE #: 91-18 Variance
BY: Al-Jaff/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: A 51 Foot Setback Variance from a Class B Wetland to
Construct a Swimming Pool
imm
Z LOCATION: 251 Trappers Pass
Q
V
J APPLICANT: . Bob and Anna Santos
251 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN ,
4
PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential I
ACREAGE: 21, 000 Square Feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND ,
LAND USE: N - PUD, single family
Q S - PUD, single family
E - PUD, single family
0 W PUD, single family-Class Class B Wetland
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. '
W PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site is adjacent to a Class B wetland.
41
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
\ '
0 0 o o o - O
0 0
0 O 0 0 tV
CO ' I I I a'E:M:'NT' CAS-ADF CASTLE CASCADE
I 7' I I HENNEPINI COUNTY C' I I .• - — CIRCLE
?/ TMA �'��
vie ', �, .I 'I PII�� SHASTA CRCLE
—�c� , �� " / W ES T
E NIII.s
1 I • ?���.� Alba -�i' SHASTA CMtCI E
� . J� �, / -� It�� �e -.., elm EAST
-_:- * UD—R i Nr ®w' /P' 10: ♦I": OLYMPIC CIRCLE 6300
T•• N. W fk .� ' , '.,I..g
1111101%4Ala STA_ GIR• j �.� .��0 4girr ��` . I CASTE RIDGE Am*Lii .,yNti - '�so �� ' COURT���� 6400
-,� HUNT R !�� tom �` ' . ��� •.� �'y L9j COURT it
Er.14 Mg rrir H�rw \ •' �� �j .� 6500 ef
,I�„ia ._�� ♦ _ _-N.- c al RSF•
y��:. r � '�? CARVER \, ,� `CQ R1 it*� ��� -6600
• �� BEACH -' �� ' �I �!�
iv I
I PARK ! ►'' I' d 44•1-1 z Si r1 � /i . , - 3 , —6700
Ire I VIOLET .' 440_ NORTH 3t LOTUS _ •
*,-,4k ■ R7111' _� .0 .t• �, LAKE 1 :
„ .9 \ PARK `v- _ --6800
4ftel - APIt2 To . l \\' t- , , -' .
1 �- "---,___
ss - . E. \ .``� -- -6900
�' ' L TUS -- -
Qo S
�1A ,1' -1� _ Y t 1 � -,- �� ------ --- 7000
ill \- `' ' Or / r* -- ----- ----710 0
,J vs. )9 v '•��� I , g
v
'4r t �- \�'" ii t - ',` `" . o
•/�� •/IN��� -1-1 � \, .,,� , T- � -- ------ -----7200
'`,, �� �� L A /Y E ' wit .
No•l vim_ ,�'`' I '�\: G Z — 7300
dla*IOW �,', � ;. _i
,�� . � L-.1->.
— - 7400
116 di_ p /a�'` .
uc
4- al/ y . ____Ti , , R12m a
4 \ ‘. . It • -,4 o
14ASSAF? 4 >;"4---,H--. I - . *I of 1 el 1\,..)..)NvA,,, ,,, i
pi, )___(_„_ .• . 1 cA
_ I ,-
,,
.. •
.-
-IA 7-- - te.- y . 1` - ..
1 ... _Big 'a W •. u s a ti, 74.1 '. -t? - `N 0. 1 �/4 01,,, , ...- "'.' _ ...t-414.(:
W m - i Nu '+-- A j l .4�.7 • w
I fl 177
I
Santos Variance I
October 14, 1991
Page 2 I
BACKGROUND
On June 3, 1985, the City Council approved the final plat for
Trappers Pass at Near Mountain, Phase II. Setbacks from the
wetland appear to not have been taken into consideration when the
depth of those lots were approved. 1
On June 25, 1986, the City approved a building permit for a house
for the subject residence to be built approximately 65 feet from
the edge of a Class B wetland. Again, we are uncertain as to why
the variance situation was not caught during review of the building
permit.
On September 24, 1991, staff visited the subject site and
discovered a sandbox/totlot constructed within the wetland and
within a drainage easement. This easement surrounds the wetland
and it is city ordinance that no structure be constructed within
any easement. As a result, part of the wetland has been altered.
This alteration must have taken place some time ago as grass has
been established into the wetland boundary. The same is true for
the property located to the west of the subject site.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS '
Section 20-409 (2) of the City Code states that all structures must
maintain a 75 foot setback from a Class B wetland. '
ANALYSIS
•
The applicant is proposing to build a swimming pool within 24 feet ,
of a Class B wetland. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 foot
setback. It appears that the city has applied the wetland setback
inconsistently, in this subdivision. Furthermore, lots were
created with insufficient depth which made them difficult, if not
impossible, to build upon without a variance. The error was
compounded by approval of a building permit which resulted in the
construction of a home without obtaining a variance. At the time
these actions were taken, staff was working under enormous pressure
being both shorthanded and faced with a large number of development
proposals. Since that time a number of administrative changes have
been undertaken to hopefully eliminate this problem and staff is
working on methods to improve wetland identification. A variance
may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or City
Council only if all of the following criteria are met:
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
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a
use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet 1
I
Santos Variance
October 14, 1991
Page 3
tof it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop
' neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that
blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
' * Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the
surrounding area and discovered that the average setback
is 53 feet. The houses situated to the west of the
' subject site and located in the Trappers Pass At Near
Mountain subdivision, have setbacks of 18, 20, 32, 35,
and 65 feet, verses the houses situated to the north of
' the site and located in the Chestnut Ridge At Near
Mountain 8th Addition, which maintain a setback that
exceeds the required 75 feet. This is due to the fact
that the wetland ordinance was better implemented at the
11 time Chestnut Ridge was approved. Fifty percent of the
properties within 500 feet are encroaching on the wetland
setback. Furthermore, the requested setback of 24 feet
exceeds the setback of some of the properties located to
the west of the subject site. Therefore, granting the
variance will allow the subject property to blend with
' these existing standards without departing downward from
them (Attachment #1) .
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based
' are not applicable, generally, to other property within the
same zoning classification.
' * The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is
based are not generally applicable to other properties
within the same zoning classification outside of the
immediate area. They only apply to lots located in this
' subdivision.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
* This does not appear to be the case. The applicant is
' simply attempting to utilize the parcel for the single
family residential uses it was approved for.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created
' hardship.
* The hardship is not self created. Parcel size and
' setback measurements were overlooked when approving the
plat. Staff has been working to clarify wetland
locations and boundaries both during platting and
1 building permit review. Normally, staff would not
I
Santos Variance
October 14, 1991
Page 4 I
recommend approval of a variance for a swimming pool
since they are not normally considered to be a necessity.
However, in this case, the owners purchased a lot with
reasonable intentions and are only now having problems
due to past actions by the city.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare of injurious to other land or improvements in
the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. '
* The granting of the variance will not be detrimental or
injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood. The swimming pool will be located within
24 feet of the Class B wetland. The wetland is heavily
protected by existing vegetation and staff feels
comfortable with allowing a swimming pool to be
constructed within .24 feet of the edge of the wetland.
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 property values within the neighborhood.
* The granting of the variance will allow a swimming pool
to be constructed at a reasonable distance from the
adjoining properties. It will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to those properties, nor will it
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.
RECOMMENDATION
For the above mentioned reasons, staff is recommending approval of I
Variance 91-18 with the following condition:
1. The applicant uses Type III erosion control along the edge of
the wetland.
2. The applicant remove the sandbox/totlot located within the '
utility and drainage easement and restore the wetland to its
original condition.
ATTACHMENTS ,
1. Plat map showing existing setbacks from the edge of the
wetland.
II
11 Santos Variance
October 14, 1991
II Page 5
2. Site plan showing proposed swimming pool.
3 . Letter from applicant dated September 23, 1991.
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
I
I
II
1
II
I
S cfl e tLa- Z 3 1°t
Y/7,ip G,...w 1. AAA- -2 '7
1
£ 1 ( rel.-2c &r'1 VC(Ar 4'7 I
1
11-/-The - aots 0- a� PA. y.t 717 . -
1
.\.e_ oLde_ t-c r.A.e4 A.^u 1 1,ko tA C e n A7(A t r 31-c.r��++ a_ u 00.`,,.., _c.
1h`io AL vvCA \a,.tiC \eLoc to o-A �� In la S� o ( 1.
aut- We,1k5C. .
1:5 f..._cA.A..124. of 4L GaA.4 ,q 1.A.Cc4...-klovl u' 4-1,.02, \o4 ca. LonctS 1D'T>
4 4�v K e-i� o�+..C , `-�1n� e v vo- itCIL F O- S>3 a stir 1�i l v v� Val
"-Ck 8f Ye-r-d 1v1 CX vv� ‘ SoK `ft) Ottif Y1 e- (+\ c'� • I
I
v
A.,4"- v`"kc sue,,.L,�
ye,IN 1 T'e_d 44 dam, -/u t 1,-1- , .,4 1t .. _
t 5 • \aw A (XI Ova- c e-"C" 5vlrvc . *;" —AL" d rat..%now_ /A ' Z+
e?a v tiQ.r."-i- ,AL" l5 \r c�c OAVo 4\
� e---4 a� u rQ4t o I
3 vvt u.S�� D S �
1w C' kb t.t S,-
a `� l t ,_` ` t 1
W G! OR �eta 1 b-U Jr W 'T��vl �h¢ .5�►���t� Gt 5 t�.e. 1� .
cre , cA-t `}�a ncAe `"ry tA42 1'vaV‘ US .s I
\,/,.L.. i4f AL corrt.t,V ate a 9-ect ov..a L 1L \i&a a"7 l'ir r4..14-\e.5 1
-1j 0 vi- \e °LA cn t,t. i1i2..\ 1t�aPt 7 G_.K 17 'ta.4._ •Y1f a vA a ,
req ULhT Q V a r-l Cie_ �Ac.ro a.c.-� �tA-7-
1 v,4 'i'ln, A \o_cu._\4._ . W e W-E,lA.\ AAA- 1Z.O. h La-v a.r k 114-.
\ ■,,9 34 e a a-vAi2...+A- a r tY■ ` 'Y h v—At-c.tA -d c4._ I
i
I
' i`o\212.r\ 5�rw n cv. S%-Ir t 4\ ov t 1 w o r-A1Lr-
I - a ) L
¼!\ ��� ■ ■ 4C.--1 sh B k6' he.V`kADor-S . �^a-n1Ly. •
1
1
w iirlii - ad liS 1 Ii•..imilr..i• I. Wu NO r sii •■ 1 ''■11r', NO fillip allipi 1011 ■ E limi
j • •
‘,;' or , f_ ' ,
r✓'z E 5 I • 3 z-
.7. �� o�
� �/I�(rcu1 t ' �� 75 a� l6!�.. c/a? 9' I • Weil-a-04
... I .I I / ! 7.7."--71 r r , IF- ,ri0RE-'W ooO ..
T I OF (..Fi t � , ,E,N /i • •I`+.(3' ',OVlT t• '1�.l
\\ -/- D 1 ji ! 6 CHESTNUT ' I '1,2° 1 c
3' ' P I 14''''12 heAT 3 NEAR 2
1 —T, •.) 2 U
f 6�y 3
F \ 5 1 4 3 2 I I I IOC -Rtl! ` _
�U
er ' 8TH ADDITION 1
\ I , 1 ,/ !
PSI — . TRAf�PERS PASS 35 CNES :li--� '6` N
2 a T I ��� I :o AT N ;R M�U
n OT > ' -3/ 4 ) 3� I jd/ f � � r--
A T R'QP / O a ��/ �` .iC`.� I \ Z`1� 0; ;tZ PIE.cam �/NE N TRA PERS 'I Pp,SS �I ,,ouRT 3
C < ! t �` 6TH e DDITIC
P P4� 3 / 2 0 44/ 3 I 9,p 4
5 VO 4 I MOUNTAI F
�,v 4 / `=J ' d 0
4
App, �� 9 T R APPEFtS m s) ��N, •s� r 0 c(
5 2
NEAR 4P AF �< -%j
3 ,TRAP AT 3 ,,,„ (6' '9
UNE _ / -.-01' 7
a, 0 ,..„. r.,,e,",. ,c,c, MOUNTAIN � •\2
2 Q ! 3 ND o ADDITION - ! ,
2 7
d
PASS l( 21 3I 4 5I 6
I ' N CH ST T
N. I RING
• �, 0,
4 2 �V UUNTAIN : WAY
5 , TRAPPERS �� N A,. MI�,UN SIN I
��` ^ Akoh:o. 3 ,\ AT 3 4 5 6 T L7° �1 7- + 7 PASS r,,y ? 'H 2 A DITI��N •
q0
1 00 . 1. B / a
-�•
1 _ .. . - ___
I .1
—A•419-A4 UNDP
aririswi*IPram 3311aPPall S0311 BS ....................,..........1 W.0 ae•••-■
801010(Z19)
mg IDINDUU1161'WSSLNIRLD
OM SumP211 1089
*Mil‘SM8P°35V Is.
-410N n
.....,.■T.a.... mi......14.= I
WAN'..."'"=e"Trifta="I 1 t13018
I \
\ .
• t
A \
I \ 14
, .
1,....,.
)/
•-.)"
I .
i 1
..)..„,„
-.... ,...0
it-K......... ,
Y.,;;;
I f / / ..;. _ -,s
,
f -1.
t
, i
Il l. / ,1:, ;)'- e.
i
rg. r 4
i . ,, ---.----N
I I / /
----. / -1
. i
i
. - .,
) s/
.(-
t .< - ' • .
t _11.........46*0 /
t : / i r\
`;').,„_,,'-- alio_
rc, I a• '-',• \.(_4'." '-':4-'--------/
• '',/;. i
ie
/ :. \
r-A\ t.
\ 1 • , 0 ni: .r•el=
-
0,-1 r--.= if: •--:---"fk. •. roll'i•••is ,_._..... ...,, a.._....it.,..":.(---)-:7),..
I 9
l.
i
i
✓ / \ \ , o
.1 : 1 4 1 1---
1 / , \
. I 1
/ f I - 1-
1 !
c
K
/ • 1 lkl
\
\k IC Ill-
. j illi); ... i i . ,. •.1 1
--- .. 211 •
2i e z I- I.• v
t 4 ;11 I
I
' 1 seol 1_•7, i
i 01 - L al
. 1 1 • I i 4
• ,-— k i.4 : ,,p,__ __, , ,
I ‘
I i • •, .
• - •I • s
0 joii •
i etr3._ -1
4, 1 .: ;kV/a}...1 ' I • '••;at
I: 4
\0 . iz.K4 t 7
! It i ' Wiy;t1 • •
i c‘41
• _______
----.. -. ' 11.
• C"\,- -dirfelFAI .. t • — eilji''
t"---------------. • _J ' •0: .
.....)
I ---.----------__ - — — - —
•------__ - _ _ _
1 ,
I -?-`-`•
, _.
-8 • i
I • ti ,,,
i I
1
f i
r -
s
M Minnesota Department of Health 1
Division of Environmental Health
925 Delaware Street Southeast
P.O. Box 59040
Minneapolis, MN 55459-0040
• (612) 627-5100
October 18, 1991 II
II
Mr. Kevin Norby
Norby & Associates
6801 Red Wing Lane
II
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Norby: I
Subject: Pool Water and Pool Water Discharge
Thank you for contacting me with your questions regarding pool water. As you II
know, pools require chemicals to maintain a sanitary environment for bathers.
Chlorine is a common chemical used for sanitation. Generally pools should
maintain free chlorine residual of 0.5 to 3.0 parts per million. The pH of
II
the pool water should be between 7.2 and 7.6 to provide effective sanitation
by the chlorine.
In comparison, municipal drinking water will have a free chlorine residual of II
0.2 to 0.5 parts per million and a pH between 7.2 and 7.6.
Other chemicals may exist in a pool . Bromine may be substituted for chlorine I
as a disinfectant. Aluminum sulfate may be used as a coagulant to remove
suspended particles. Cyanuric acid will be present in most outdoor pools as a
chlorine stabilizer. Soda ash and muriatic acid are used to adjust pH. The
II
amounts of these chemicals would depend on the size of the pool and the amount
of chemical change required.
Pool water must run through a filtration system to pull contaminants out of II
the water. When the filter becomes clogged, it is normally backwashed to
clean the filter. The discharge from the backwashing can be to the sanitary
II
sewer, the storm sewer, or to grade. The local authority may have additional
restrictions regarding the location of the discharge.
I hope this provides you with the information you need. If you have any 1
questions, please contact me at 612/627-5120.
Sincerely, 11
t N A.N, U— II Lewis E. Anderson
Public Health Engineer
Section of Water Supply
and Well Management
I
LEA:cls I
II
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1
r
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
' MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 14, 1991
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Tom
Workman.
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director, Roger Knutson, City
Attorney and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I.
' The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Addition of a Garage to an Existing Single Family Residence on a
Nonconforming Lot, 10241 Mandan Circle, Paul Weld
Al-Jaff presented the staff report.
Watson made a motion to approve the variance. Workman seconded the
motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A 51 Foot Setback Variance from a Class B Wetland to Construct a
Swimming Pool , 251 Trappers Pass, Bob and Anna Santos
Al-Jaff presented the staff report.
Watson raised the issue of the level of chlorine in the water and
' how it would effect the wetland.
Johnson stated that not having a swimming pool does not constitute
a hardship.
Kevin Norby stated that a standard has been set in the neighborhood
with houses that have a reduced setback.
Workman made a motion to approve the variance. Johnson and Watson
voted against it. The variance was denied.
' Variance to Allow Two Principal Buildings to be Erected on a Single
Building Lot and a 28 Foot Variance to the Required 30 Foot Front
Yard Setback for the Purpose of Keeping a Summer Cabin, 7431
Dogwood Road, C. W. Freeman
Al-Jaff updated the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on this item.
' Mr. Freeman stated that the cabin is an existing structure and is
grandfathered in. He also stated that the septic system has enough
1 capacity for both structures.
Workman moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded
by Watson.
Workman inquired why staff had recommended against having two
principle structures on the same parcel.
i
1