5. Appeal Decision of the Board of Adjustments, Denying a front Yard Variance, 7307 Laredo Dr. 1
. .
6.--
CITY OF
1 .,
,,
.., , CHANHASSEN
1 .1...: .
.p.„ „
fir" 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, 55317
(612) 937-1900 ,cunt, ny�t!y"Adr ms rntor
I �'� , ---
r.ndorsed
1 MEMORANDUM .dried
ej Pd
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
-;e:e :iobmm teed to (ori missioll
1
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner (12.)
yete Submitted to Guuncd
DATE: August 9 , 1989 - )�-E
1 SUBJ: Appeal to the Decision for the Front Yard Setback for
Leigh and Judy Colby, 7307 Laredo Drive
IBACKGROUND
On June 12, 1989, the City Council recommended to deny the front
I yard setback request for an addition to the garage and deck for
Leigh and Judy Colby (Attachment #2) .
1 ANALYSIS
The applicant has applied for an appeal to the interpretation of
the definition of front yard. The applicant believes that what
I staff is defining as a front yard is actually a side yard and the
30 foot front yard setback should not be enforced.
I The zoning ordinance defines front yard as the full width of the
lot between any building and the front lot line and measured per-
pendicular to the building from the closest point of the building
to the front lot line. The zoning ordinance defines front lot
1
line as the lot line separating the lot from the street right-of-
way. Although the house is situated on the lot so that the front
yard may act as a side yard to the applicant, the definition of
1 a front yard and front yard setback still apply and any structure
must meet the 30 foot setback unless a variance has been granted.
1 RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals must decide whether the
zoning ordinance was correctly interpreted. If the appeal is
1 approved and the Board of Adjustments agrees to define the yard
as a side yard, the applicant must still meet the 10 foot side
yard setback unless a variance is received. If the Board of
1 Adjustments recommends denial, the appeal can be reviewed by the
City Council.
1
II
11
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 9, 1989
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS '
1. Application.
2 . City Council minutes dated June 12, 1989 .
3 . City Council minutes dated May 22 , 1989 .
4 . Staff report. I
1
1
1
1
I
11
II LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I (612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: -Lt4 4-[l Z., IA_641,"t OWNER: E-' $
IADDRESS \ / `j 07 .. -). ')c tVe.__ ADDRESS 4-' 51,,,e_
GC„ .1,.. fl 37
I Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) TELEPHONE c731f^6-07(
REQUEST: 87,4-9,73(
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
IZoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Varianceq-D-fa_j Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
I Land Use Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit Platting
Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation
ISite Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
IPROJECT NAME QcLJ( 4- 6/C-Pz11(2._ CSJ4
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION W-A-c -r--- cam( C ?
IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION (, a(
PRESENT ZONING 4-e-5.-- 2(4 ,J; _(
IREQUESTED ZONING
IUSES PROPOSED
I SIZE OF PROPERTY /
LOCATION 7 37 I e_ )-✓`[v'e rl,A---._ i--, -c-a,-\s - (e 7' S�rk
q.. .
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST t -&s k vt "� `'� 2)1"-- - '-1---t"i 17trk ic-
I
I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach �
) I-
le al if necessary )Y l , 6Pz/c i �c.A.A■P-Csks
/4L I A5G�
I
r
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
II
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
II
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
II
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 . 11
FILING CERTIFICATION:
I
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar„ with the procedural requirements of all
I
applicable City O'd"inanc-s .
Signed By A �� Date I
l i 7C5/107
pp cant _
I
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been 1
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
IIr21---- . T
Signed By
�t _Fee Ow�� Date
1
Date Application Received II
Application Fee Paid
City Receipt No. I
I
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ I
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
I
II
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
111— basically allow anybody to move in as a second occupant and that's not the
Oil intention of the ordinance. The intention is just what we did tonight. It's
not to open up two unrelated families in the same household.
' FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY.
Leigh Colby: At the last meeting, just to recap the meeting, we're asking for a
variance to have a deck, extension of the garage underneath and the bulk of the
structure would be at the ground level. The portion that would not be at the
ground level would be behind a green barrier. A bunch of evergreen trees.
We're hoping to have this come to a vote tonight so that we can get approval to
go ahead. I'd like to just make a few comments about that so that you have some
comfort level regarding how it fits in the neighborhood. First of all, the
people in the neighborhood think it's a good idea. In walking up here
' tonight, I brought a tape measurer and just took a look at some of the houses
along the way. The closest our house comes, the proposed extension would come
to the curb is about 30 feet. That's on the northwest corner. The southwest
corner would be about 36 feet back from the curb itself. The whole thing would
be behind an evergreen barrier that's about 15-16 feet in diameter. In walking
up here I took a look at the closest neighbor's house is 31 feet along the whole
length of his house from the curb. That's on the side and most of the proposed
' extension would actually be set back further than what his house is from the
street. So the point I'm trying to make in all of this and looking at some of
the other houses of which some were 27 feet from the curb. One was 29 feet and
this is further up now in the busy part of Laredo, is that I don't think anybody
really n�Tdces these sorts of things. I understand the reason for having the
variance, to prevent abuse but quite frankly I really don' t think anybody
notices because they've all been tastefully done. I think in the absence of
' using a tape measurer, people would be hard pressed to know that they're that
close to the curb. So I'd like to ask the Council to just bring this to a vote.
I think it's certainly a reasonable request and the neighbors think a very
' tasetful request. Can you do that?
Mayor C oriel: Thank you Leigh. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
address this at this time? If not, we'll bring it back here to the Council.
' Who has any comments that they'd like to bring forth? I'm sort of interested in
you saying what the distances were on other homes. What specific ones were
those that you had just...
Leigh Colby: Sure, 7209 Frontier is the house that is parallel with our home.
It's our backyard, I guess you'd call that our backyard even though it's
probably the sideyard, and their backyard which literally is their backyard.
The houses aren't parallel. Their house is 31 feet from the curb, the whole
length and that's an upright. That's our of the ground. The proposed extension
that we're dealing with is at ground level. That's 36 feet from the curb on the
' near side to 7209 Frontier so if you were to just stand up on the corner and
look, it's obvious that the Groen's house is substantially closer to the street.
It really is quite obvious. It's just an unusual layout the way the house...
7605 Laredo, which is just right down here is 27 feet from the curb. 521 Laredo
Lane, which is where Laredo Lane and Laredo Drive intersect, that's 29 feet from
( Laredo Drive. The apartments right down here at Saratoga, the garage reae'ties
back 32 feet from the curb. None of them have the green barrier. Not a single
one of the addresses have any sort of a green barrier that we have and that's
33
C4i Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
part of our design for the privacy. So I think our request, even though you
won't hear me make any claims of hardships or anything like that, we're not
making those sorts of claims. We think it's a pretty straight forward request.
A tasteful one that is consistent with the surrounding housing.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Leigh.
Councilman Johnson: I think when we look at this, some of the areas you
discussed are in a POD, residential planned unit development which was done well
before any of us were on the Council and before some of us even lived, before
the majority of the Council lived in this town. These PUD's were approved. A
lot of times in these PUD's they did, one of the parts of the approval was to
allow the houses closer to the setback. That may be part of it. The zoning
ordinance has changed many times also. Several times since these were approved.
I don't like variances. I don't like the precedence they set. No matter what
you do, when everybody says mine is totally unique, somebody else comes in 6
months later and say's mine is the same. I'm at Carver Beach. I want to be 1
foot off the setback. The roads at Carver Beach only have a 30 foot wide
roadway instead of a 50 foot wide roadway so there's no real setback or there's
no city property. We end up with saying, well he got a variance of 19 feet, why
can't I? They end up right on top of the road. If this does get passed
tonight, there should be a condition in here that prohibits future building on
top of this garage. Because once you've got that nice flat surface there, the
next logical thing is to add that extra master bedroom on top. It may not be
you, it might be the next person. You might be transferred to Denver next week
for all I know, if you want to go breathe that air. We have to make sure, and I
don't know how you would do that because a guy's going to come in and pull a
building permit and all I'm doing is building on top of my garage. More than
likely staff wouldn't catch that building. Since the garage is already there,
it must be legal to build on top of it 5 years, 10 years down the road. Now
you've got a house built there.
Leigh Colby: One of the questions that was kicked around by one of the council
members was considering they have somehow resolved is a sidewalk. If that were
done, the variance would be 1 foot on one corner and then the length of that
variance would be for about 5 feet and then literally it is within the side lot
conditions. It's really what we're dealing with here. I don't have any plans
to build on top but I don't want to make it any bigger deal than what I think it
is. In effect we're asking for a side lot variance with a 1 foot extension out
into what would be considered city property and to run approximately 5 feet. I
would rather see you put a condition that there's a green barrier maintained of
15 to 20 feet or higher. To me if you would have taken the time to go down and
look at it, maybe you have.
Councilman Johnson: Of course we have.
Leigh Colby: Okay. I'm glad you have. I think you would see that that is
probably a more effective way to deal with it aesthetically and very consistent
with the neighborhood. That's part of our plan so if that were a condition, we
would certainly welcome that. But if you want to deal with the problem, that
really is, I think a much more aesthetic limitation to put on that piece of
property.
34
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: If you declare this a sideyard, then you'd make it 19 foot
wide and then you don't have any variance and you're not even talking to us.
Il Leigh Colby: The reason why we want to make it the width that we have, and
that's perhaps a nice political solution but the practicality is that we've got
a 16 foot wide door that's going on to match the 16 foot wide garage door we
already have but the reason for the width is that our current 16 foot wide door,
it widens up a foot on each side and it is a small garage. Garages are just not
generally built that size. They're usually just a couple feet wider. It's too
' small and that's the reason why the garage is built the way we proposed it. It
might, what you're saying is perhaps a good political solution but the last
thing I want to do is to avoid, just to avoid having one corner trigger a
' problem, is to end up with another garage that's just simple too small. I'm not
going to spend that much money and end up with a poor solution. Especially one
that really, it would have to be characterized as a diminimous issue and I
really think that you're forced to accept that there's some validity in my
statement on that.
Councilman Johnson: For 2 1/2 years I've stood pretty firm on variances. I'm
' going to stay where I've always been. You're going to have to show me a
hardship other than I want it.
Leigh Colby: Well I'm not claiming any hardships. I'm not going to play any
games on that.
Councilman Johnson: I'll pass onto the next.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom?
Councilman Workman: I'm still listening Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill?
' Councilman Boyt: You know it's never easy and no one ever chooses to get into a
dispute with a neighbor. I think we see that from time to time with petition
signing and such that most people don' t feel it's worth the repercussions. I
' think the staff has cleared up the question about the covenants, plus that's not
the City's issue anyway.
' Leigh Colby: We've already gone around to more than a majority of the
homeowners so that's not an issue.
Councilman Boyt: The Covenants and the homeowners is a whole separate issue and
I think we both agree that that's a separate issue. As far as the City issue,
it's an interesting situation here in a lot of ways and one of them is, I know
you're a reasonable person making a reasonable request. I agree with Jay and I
appreciate your openness. I agree with you, it's not a hardship. I'm glad you
see it that way. That happens to be one of the criteria. I can tell you that
that's the way I vote is in regard to how it fits those criteria. So I
recognize that this doesn't necessarily make the best solution but in my
approach to variances, granting a variance without meeting the criteria and one
that is as dramatic in terms of encroachment on the setback as this is, i�S just
not something that I can vote for.
35
6
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I haven't really changed my position from the last
time. I stated in there that I've always thought of that as their sideyard and
I know legally it's your frontyard because it's on the road side but it is the
side of your house. You do have an odd situation there and I think that is
something that we need to look at and I like to look at each situation for
itself. I don't mean to set a precedent here and I won't because I will look at
each situation in the future and have it pass or fail on it's own merits. But I
think in this situation since it is on Laredo, which ends in a circle. It runs
into a lake. There is nothing that I can foresee that the City would ever want
to do that they couldn't do. ,
Leigh Colby: There's even room for a 12 foot sidewalk.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's room for a sidewalk there. The barrier of the
trees, it is not unsightly. I do agree with the condition that there should be
no, I guess one of the things I could see him doing is putting a 3 season porch
on top of the deck. I guess we should prohibit that right now. In the future
there should be no construction on top of the deck or on top of the garage. But
I have no problems because of the specifics that I just mentioned, I have no
problems with voting for this. ,
Leigh Colby: Would this be recast...in the future?
Councilman Boyt: You can't do that? '
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of the things I wanted to ask you, I was
talking to Judy today and she indicated that the home in itself doesn't meet the
11!
requirements. Is that correct?
Leigh Colby: No, that was on the curious things that came out as you are
probably aware. Bill you've indicated that you were aware of the letter that
the original contractor sent and the frontyard setback on the restricted
covenants that the contractor himself signed said 40 feet and it was 35 feet as
constructed. If they had simply built it right, we would be set back 35 feet.
It's just insane and in his own handwriting sent us the letter saying that,
alerting us to the restricted covenant which we already knew about and he
included a plat and a survey. In his own handwriting penciled in 35 feet and
the restricted covenant, it's obvious, said 40 feet. I mean we were really
confused by that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying that he changed his own convenant?
Leigh Colby: Well I asked him about it and he, there was a lot of back peddling
and as you can imagine, the restricted covenants is 33 years old. He chalked it
up as a mistake in locating the house so what can I say.
Councilwoman Dimler: So would that be considered a hardship then? '
Leigh Colby: No, we're not going, we just think it's a very straight forward
request. Gee, you'd like we were asking to build on a museleum for a new
religion or something like that.
af
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, I'll repeat that in this particular case I have no
problem.
36 1
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Workman: I did finally get to get out there and it was a beautiful
day.
Leigh Colby: And the bicycle you ran over has been.. .
' Councilman Workman: We're still negotiating. There was nobody on that bike.
Councilman Johnson: You've got the guilt vote going now.
Leigh Colby: Well Jay don't laugh too hard. We recused your kid on Saturday.
' Councilman Johnson: My kid on Saturday?
Leigh Colby: You were at the Cub Scouts. I think we're up to-4 votes now. If
' you want to bring it to a vote...
Councilman Johnson: We had a little Cub Scout sitting in the back crying saying
where's my daddy. Left him out in the wilderness.
' Councilman Workman: Anyway, that little bike instance was not supposed to come
out. I think you lost my vote. I approached said site and proceeded to pull
' into the driveway. Got out of the car and asked, is this the front of your
house or the back of your house? It was in fact the back of your house. You
have two driveways.
Leigh Colby: Were you in the upper or the lower? I still don't know where you
were.
' Councilman Workman: I was in the upper. The one where your mailbox is.
Leigh Colby: It looks like the side of our house.
' Councilman Workman: Yes, that's the back. Not to say that that's in particular
one goofy aspect of your situation there. I think Judy was delighted to hear me
say that when I pulled up and this is kind of different. In looking at it, I
guess I understand the fact that there maybe isn't a hardship here. I had a
good conversation with the Mayor today on the phone about it and talked to
Roger, the Attorney here a little bit and had a good conversation. To tell you
' the truth, I really jumped around with this. Bill has some good points and so
does Jay in regards to granting variances and perhaps not setting precedence
because as Ursula says, each one is different and it's tough to set a precedence
' with different situations. But I have been trying to figure out a way in my own
mind and perhaps some justification or maybe not. Maybe I shouldn't be worrying
about it so much. That's usually the approach I take. On an earlier issue
tonight with a gentleman putting in curb and gutter, I say let the guy do
' business. Let's make it easy for the guy to do business and let's make it easy
for people to live in town. But not too easy. Not too flagrant. One of the
things I did look at was where are we going to remove earth and how far is it
going to come out and how high is it going to be sticking out of the ground,
etc.? The foundation I'm assuming is level with the foundation that you have
now? •`
r
37
114
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Leigh Colby: That's correct. There will be about a 9 inch step up. One step
to get onto the deck from the upper level.
Councilman Workman: That in itself to me looked like it was a very low impact
thing. Should this pass this evening, I would strongly suggest that no
building on top of the garage shall be done and perhaps that would have to be an
additional variance. How high is the railing going to be or what kind of a
railing are you going to have on top of that?
Leigh Colby: It will be whatever a standard height railing is. We've let this '
out for bid with several contractors. Whatever the standard height is. I
really don't know and I've built a deck before so I should be able to answer
that but I would assume it's anywhere from 42 to 48 inches. '
Councilman Workman: What is the surface of the decking going to be?
Leigh Colby: Redwood. '
Councilman Workman: So it's just going to be a roof of the garage?
Leigh Colby: Well eventually there will be a deck over the garage and then
underneath it there will be rubber, it's a solid rubber sheet that the entire
thing is custom fit. Apparently everybody is running away from tar because it
cracks. We've been advised to go with a rubberized roof.
Councilman Workman: So you mean on top of the new garage won't be like pre-
stressed concrete or anything set on top of there? It will be the foundation I
and then on top of that will be this rubber?
Leigh Colby: No. You've got to have the beams. That will all be to Code.
Normally there's half inch plywood laid over the plyons or whatever the cross
metal deck and I've asked to have that upgraded a full quarter to a half inch so
it's 3/4 to an inch lamenated plywood.
Councilman Workman: Is this new base going to be able to, is it oin to have
g g
the proper footings that would allow future building on top of it?
Leigh Colby: it will be matching the foundations of the house. Part of the
goal is to make it look like it was originally built with the house and that
means we're matching block and we will have to go down, regardless we will have
to go down below the frost line so the front 10 to 15 feet will be down what, 48
inches? Is that what the Code is? Then as it goes back into the hill, that can
be brought out. Then it will be blended into the foundation as it goes around
and joins the house. It will be matching and our goal is to make it look, if
you remember the plans, those plans were drawn up 10-12 years ago and our goal
is simple to execute those plans so it looks like it was part of the house.
Councilman Workman: Would you be removing the upper driveway?
Leigh Colby: No. Actually we would probably have no reason for it. We've
talked about whether or not we'd want to keep it. It's starting to break up. I
would be willing to bet you that once it breaks up badly, we would probably •5
remove it and sod it. That's our back kitchen. Practically speaking, where you
parked is our backyard.
38 '
• City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Workman: I'd be interested in removing a future parking lot for
more boats and trucks. That's the situation we have now and that's the one that
the neighbors don't prefer.
' Leigh Colby: Either does my wife.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we can make somebody remove a driveway, I don't know,
as a condition of approval. You've got two driveways there. You're covering an
awful lot of your yard with driveways and garage.
Leigh Colby: I really think the issue is whether or not you want to have an
extension there. That's the principle issue.
Councilman Workman: Right. I don't see the boat and the truck storage outside
as being a hardship reason. Boats and trucks come...
' Leigh Colby: We're not claiming any hardship.
' Councilman Workman: I do agree that you have an odd piece of lot. I don't know
that neighborhood approval is or is not a reason to grant variances. It is a
very private road. Your neighbors don't seem to have a problem with it. And
' maybe I can direct this to Jay and Bill, other than the additional structure
would be violating an imaginary line, what would the harm be?
Councilman Johnson: The harm is not as much a harm to the City or to the area
as it is a continuous of us violating our own rules of procedure. State laws
that form those rules of procedures. We've got a map in our Comprehensive Plan
that shows the various lots that have variances on them. It's a very colorful
' map. Many, many variances have been granted over the years. They used to be a
dime a dozen. We've been getting stricter on them and that's one of the things,
if you establish a reputation for not following your own rules, it slowly gets
worse and worse and worse. It's a trend I've been trying to reverse for 2
years. I've been on the losing side on a lot of variance things. It doesn't
bother me that I'm on a losing side of a variance anymore. I've lost a lot of
them in the last 2 years.
' Councilman Workman: Okay, getting out of the Code book. What is this going to
do in this situation to harm anything? In this situation? That's why we have
' the BOA.
Councilman Johnson: BOA?
' Councilman Workman Board of Adjustments.
Councilman Boyt: Why is that?
' Councilman Workman: Why we have the Board of Adjustments?
Councilman Boyt: You said that's why we have them. Why do we have them?
Councilman Workman: Because of variance situations. h '
T a t s why the S tafe also
} has said we can have them. So taking Ursula's view, and this is this situation,
what will this harm?
39
--C- ty Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Everybody, including Mr. Stockdale who was up here
I
previously, has invariably said, he did it. I deserve to get it done too. The
next situation can be totally different. They've been 100% the opposite and
they continue with the same argument. Actually I don't see much harm here
unless they put a room or a 3 season porch up on top later. If it's going to be
a flat deck, it's going to be a flat deck - We can put whatever condition we
want but 10 years from now somebody's going to put up something on top of there
and the changes of our building inspector realizing that there's a restriction
is slim to none. There's just not the data management system established at
this time to record those. We've tried a lot of covenants and restrictions and
everything else and they just don't work. You see a couple years down the road,
oh my we built this and there was a restriction we weren't allowed to build it.
Once it's built, you don't tell them to tear it down. '
Leigh Colby: I really urge you to be careful about putting restrictions in
covenants. '
Councilman Johnson: This would be a bit more than a covenant.
Leigh Colby: Yes, but I think we're a little bit more conscientious than most ,
people and the fact of the matter is, when we were handed our homeowner's
documents, we were given a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the covenants.
We could barely read it and I think we're more conscientious than most people.
Either you have to find that our request is consistent with the neighborhood,
which I think you all have to agree... And if it's consistent, I think that is
really your number one criteria for putting it to a vote.
Councilman Johnson: Well you know there's a lot of criteria on traffic laws.
It's a State law. We have criteria to meet. If you do all 5 of those, you get
the variance. Basically, if you meet all 5 criteria, the State law, we have no
choice hardly other than to give you the variance. But if you don't meet any of
those, the State laws, basically you don't get the variance. We've tried to say
can we bring reasonableness into this. Is reasonableness allowed by State law
to be brought into this criteria of zoning and they said no. We've tried to get
our attorneys to rewrite our zoning ordinance and they said well it doesn't
really matter. It's illegal to rewrite your zoning ordinance to allow
reasonableness- as a criteria. Criteria number 6. If it's reasonable to ignore
criteria 1 through 5, do it. That has been the past practice many years ago.
They just overlooked some criterias and added others.
Leigh Colby: Well I come from a keep it simple school of doing business. A
couple of the neighbors independently of each othere just said why are you
wasting your time with the City Council and I really want to be complying. I
really think that you should just put it to a vote as we've requested it. Don't
make it complicated. Don't put restrictions on it that are going to cause
people to fight over it 15 years after we leave. I don't think any good will be
served by that.
Councilman Johnson: So you don't think we should put a restriction on it to
restrict any future upward building?
Leigh Colby: That quite frankly doesn't bother me but in keeping it simple,-I
think that it would be a waste of time.
40 '
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
I_ Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a comment. I agree with Jay in that there
might be a mistake made in the future but I think as far as this Council is
concerned, we can only do what we can do right now and we can put a restriction
' on it. Maybe they won't make a mistake in the future, who knows but as far as
I'm concerned, I think we should put a restriction on it.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, I can make it simple. I'd like to ask our Attorney for
an opinion. In your opinion, can the Council follow State Statute and grant
this variance?
' Roger Knutson: It's well documented by the applicant and everyone else that
there is no qualified hardship. The answer is obviously no. The applicant has
admitted that.
Councilman Workman: I guess I would add. I am concerned about the future
building on top of this. I don't know if that would be defended.
' Mayor Chmiel: I also feel the same on that only because of the fact that that
could change the appearance of that structure and not be aesthetically pleasing
' to the balance of the neighbors either. What's pleasing to one may not be
pleasing to the other. I look at that pie shaped lot as you do have it, even
though that's your sideyard or your frontyard, to me it's still the sideyard.
Only because of the upper drive that does come into your residence, to me that
' is the front of the house although it's still not facing onto a street. There's
a front of a house and the back of a house and the side of the house which abuts
the road. If it were a cross street, this could cause a problem too but in this
particular case, as I mentioned, it's on a cul-de-sac. It is an unusual
circumstance. I understand that you do want to make the request and get going
with this and vote it or don't vote. But I have a real hard, I've been leaning
both ways believe it or not. I'll be very honest and as I was hoping that you
' would come in with a hardship portion that could really turn this around. Being
that there still is not that hardship, that's the part the bothers me.
' Leigh Colby: What do you declare a hardship? are tight on storage space. I
have a table saw that I keep at my friend's house because I literally have no
place in the house to put it but I would not classify that as a hardship.
' Mayor Chmi.e-l: Would you like to just clarify those hardships as it indicates
within the ordinance?
Roger Knutson: Qualifying hardship is something that because of zoning
ordinance restrictions prevents reasonable use of the property. Something that
is not just generated for example by the present owner's personal needs.
' Leigh Colby: Would you define the word reasonable use because we would like to
make reasonable use of a portion of our property that quite frankly we can't use
that part of the property. It's so sloped, it's unuseable.
' Roger_ Knutson: In implying that term, the Courts don't look to each square inch
ch
of the property. They look to the lot as a whole. There happens to be a home
on your lot. You have a two car garage on your home. That's as much garage as
most folks have so I think by traditional looking at this, you have reasopable
use of your property. Denial of the variance therefore does not deprive you of
reasonable use of your property since you already have that.
' 41
44
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: There's another restriction showing the hardship is that
the hardship cannot be self-created.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I guess what I said in jest earlier maybe now taken
more seriously that because of the- original mistake made by the builder and the 1
developer, that this is not a self-imposed hardship. It is indeed a hardship
because it now prevents than from enjoying their yard and had it been done
right, according to covenants, they wouldn't have this problem.
Councilman Boyt:
yt: I'd like to respond to that in terms of when the covenant was
put on, which the City isn't responsible for enforcing, there was no city
ordinance in place so no one violated a city ordinance and if a covenant is
violated, it's up to the homeowners to deal with that. Not the City as we've
seen other times. They are talking about a 5 foot exception to a covenant that
was far in excess, since the City didn't have anything, and now they're asking '
for 21 feet. I think Roger stated, I don't want to get into an argument on this
thing. I don't think that's the point. My standpoint, my decision is based on
what Roger has said. I take it very seriously when you stand up and take an
oath of office that says I'll enforce the State Statutes and the City
Ordinances. I don't see that we have any option, in spite of what may make
common sense. I just don't see an option myself.
Mayor Chmiel: The covenants actually ran out July 1 of 1987.
Councilman Boyt: They were renewed. I
Leigh Colby: And there after...by a simple majority of the homeowners and we're
addressing that.
Mayor Chmiel: You're in the process of addressing that.
Leigh Colby: We've already got approval by about 60% of the homeowners and '
we're going to just continue going around and get the rest.
Councilman Boyt: Leigh, you can't do that and modify the covenants. You have
to have a meeting.
Leigh Colby: But that issue is separate from this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. It's not a part of this. I guess it's gotten to the
point where I think we're going to have to call a question on it and come up
with conclusions as to either approving or denying the proposal for your deck '
and garage. Therefore I'd like to have a motion from the floor.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess since I'm the only one, well you two haven't. . .,
since I'm the only one that hasn't been drawn one way or the other in the
positive, I guess I will make the motion that the front yard setback variance be
approved at 7307 Laredo Drive, the home of Leigh and Judy Colby with the
restriction that no further building can be done on top of the deck.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Is there a second to that motion?
Councilman Workman: Roger, is that restriction valid?
42 ,
A d i)
IICity Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
III Roger Knutson: Yes.
III Mayor Chmiel: If not hearing a second, I will entertain another motion.
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we deny the front yard setback variance
II request. -
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
1 Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the front yard
variance request #89-3. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
II
APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
ITodd Gerhardt: The term of Commissioner Jim Bohn expired here May 31, 1989. It
is the duty of the mayor to appoint someone or appoint Jim since we didn't get
any other applications or appoint somebody else to fill that position.
IMayor Chmiel: Okay, it's my recommendation that Mr. Bohn be reappointed to the
HRA. In addition, he should also be commended for his efforts of attendance in
lifthe past year. He was at 100% attendance so I'd like to congratulate him on
that portion. I would like to make that into a motion.
Councilman Johnson: Second it.
ICouncilman Boyt: I'd like to comment please. I have a question Don. What
happens when a member misses more than 25% of the meetings of the HRA?
IDon Ashworth: Council procedures state that the individual is to receive a
letter from the Chairman to that effect. Staff is negligent if you currently
II have a member who is that way. Chairman Whitehill was absent. In this
instance, or we have had that situation occur and again, the past policy has
been to notify that individual. A letter would then go out under my signature
or that of the Mayor's, whichever. I'll talk with Don and make a decision as to
I who's signature it should go out under. In defense of Chairman Whitehill, there
have been a number of meetings this past year that were rearranged to
accommodate the schedules of developers. So in other words, the necessity for a
I housing contract or a development contract, proposed sale of lands, etc., the
HRA has been trying to be more than accommodating to the individuals and in
those instances there have been a number of times where the normal notice has
II not been given. So in other words, we may have our meetings set up for a
Thursday night. The developer is not ready for the Retail West development
contract. The decision is made to delay it for one additional week. Well
that's nice but with schedules like Chairman Whitehill who has scheduled the
II second and fourth Thursdays, to then move it to an odd Thursday becomes very
difficult.
II
I 43
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
jr- FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments met before the City Council and two
'7 voted for denial of the variance and one voted in favor of it. The applicant is
requesting a 21 foot front yard variance to the front yard setback for an
additional garage and deck. I've got a blueprint that you can pass down to show
the whole property because I don't have the visual. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Is Judy Colby here?
Leigh Colby: Our home was built on a rather unusually shaped piece of property.
It's not the normal rectangular shape that most of the homes have and what is
legally defined as a front yard really is our back yard and that's how we use
the area where we hope to have a combined deck and garage. The plans that we're
working off of were actually drawn up 10 years ago from previous owners and is
designed so the face of the house is continuous. It's designed to look
naturally as part of the house but what you should look at very closely is the
fact that part of the garage unit, the northwest corner, actually comes over the
line and that's what we're asking for a variance on. From the street we've got
3 very large evergreen trees. You cannot see the house from the street so this
is a very private area. Add to the fact that this, Laredo Drive is a dead end
and it really is a very private area. That's why we use it as a back yard in
terms of the way the house is laid out. In terms of why we want the garage, we
have no place to put one of our vehicles and a boat and with our 15 year old, we
would expect to have another car and want to be able to store that also so those
right now are sitting outside. That's the reason for the request for the
garage. The garage that we have is very small. It's a tuck under and it was
built in 1961. I don't know if you've been in a garage that's about 17 feet
wide but fortunately they're making cars smaller these days. We did ask at the
earlier meeting tonight if they've granted waivers of this in the past and
apparently they have so I don't really think that we're asking for much of a
variance.
Judy Colby: We're asking for a front yard setback but it's to the side of our '
house so if you will imagine your house and wanting to put in a garage, and it's
a tuck under garage so it goes into the dirt. We have to excavate the dirt out.
If you imagine putting that on the side of your house and a deck on top of it
and no one will be able to see that, and like he mentioned, our garage is so
small we get two vehicles in but nothing else so our recreation room now has
become for the bikes and the sleds and everything else. But I went around the
whole cul-de-sac to all the homes within 500 feet and everyone signed because
they don't want our boat and our truck up in the front of our yard as we don't.
We would like to get that in. And when we purchased the house, it's part of an
association that has that beachlot so we don' t have a place to dock a boat so
you have to keep your boat on your premises. You can't keep it down at the lake
but we have a beachlot and a place to put the boat in. Then also we saw these
plans that you saw, plans that were drawn up by the people before we purchased
the house so when we saw those plans, we never assumed there'd be any problem
adding a garage on there for our extra vehicle and boat. Then when we found out
that yes, it's the side of your house but it's the front yard, we said no. It's
not the front yard. This is the front yard so it just doesn't seem like, and we
got all the signatures in the neighborhood. There was no on opposed. Io face
we probably have a couple neighbors right now saying please let them put their
truck in the garage. '
25 '
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Mayor_ Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: Well I do have one. Are you aware of the covenants of the
Association?
Leigh Colby: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: Are there any covenants in there about setbacks?
Leigh Colby: Not that I'm aware of. Most of the covenants have to do with
building sheds and that sort of thing. Detached from the house. I'm not aware
of any other.
Judy Colby: We did ask the treasurer to look into that and they didn't find
' anything.
Mayor Chmiel: I did take a look at your location. You're at a cul-de-sac
portion and it's a dead end road basically other than the other access to the
residences there. I did notice a boat out in front in your first driveway as
you come down. Of course there was one car in the garage at the time. Probably
the second one was coming home.
' Judy Colby: The truck's being used by a friend. I wish that would have been in
the driveway for you.
' Leigh Colby: You would have understood. It's 20 years old.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're looking for basically is a 21 foot variance
' to the front yard setback which is required. The proposed addition is going to
be 21 feet wide, is that correct?
' Leigh Colby: That's right. And driving down the hill, the only thing you would
see coming down Laredo to the cul-de-sac is the redwood deck. You would not
actually see the garage. That would be about a foot above ground level and most
of that would sheltered by the trees.
Councilman Johnson: I don't remember in the past 2 1/2 years granting any 21
foot variances to front yard setbacks.
Judy Colby: For the side of a house?
' Councilman Johnson: To a front yard setback to where we're getting within 9
foot of the street right-of-way. In a PUD we've gone to 5 feet from the street
right-of-way. It's a bad precedence to start. I don't see the hardship.
Because you own an ugly truck is not a hardship. I sold my ugly truck. Of
course it didn't run. Your's obviously runs since you loaned it to somebody.
Leigh Colby: I think you saw the property, you would understand that you cannot
see it. I mean you cannot see it.
Judy Colby: And the 9 foot, what you're talking about is you've got quite a'few 67
feel back to these huge trees and then there's this space which is dead so if
that's our front yard, if you want to call it our front yard, you're stopping us
' 26
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
from using our front yard because you want more feet to do with I don't know
what you'll do because you'd have plenty of room for a sidewalk in front of
4
those trees.
Councilman Johnson: That's the only place you could put it on city property.
Judy Colby: Right, and you have plenty of room without touching our trees there
to put a sidewalk. I can't imagine what other use you'd have for that. Those
trees will remain.
Councilman Johnson: Unless we have a spruce disease and the trees die and then
we've got a house...
Judy Colby: Then we'll put a different tree in because we want the privacy. 1
Leigh Colby: That's part of the plan is that the trees provide some privacy.
We have absolutely no other place on the property that we can expand in any way
because of the unusual orientation.
Mayor Chmiel: You have a pie shaped lot basically. 1
Leigh Colby: Yes. It should have been a smaller 2 story home turned the right
way.
_ - 1
Councilman Johnson: We shouldn't have approved the pie shaped lot 20 years ago
or whenever either. We don't approve those anymore or try not to. I still,
when we grant one, everybody comes in and says, well you di.d it for these folks
i and we want exactly the same thing. Then it gets kind of like potato chips or
whatever. You had one, somebody else wants another. It just keeps going.
Judy Colby: I think it's been obvious that the variance must have been granted
to some people though because you haven' t gone along those 5 restrictions that
you have to prove and that's what we were told. And there was this drawing that
we saw that we assumed we could do. That was an assumption and that was our
fault for not checking into it but when you sco the architectural drawing of
something, when you're buying a house then you think, well good, then we don't
have to store something in our front yard. Like I said, our regular garage is
so small that we literally get 2 cars in only. Imagine your garage, if you have
a normal house, and not being able to store anything but 2 cars in there.
Councilman Johnson: When did you buy this? 1
Leigh Colby: 3 years ago.
Councilman Johnson: And at that time you were expecting to build onto the
garage as part of it and you didn't check to see if you could?
Judy Colby: Well we just did now when we were going to add to it. By the look
of it we thought we had plenty of feet from the side of the house and I di.d call
and ask what was a variance from the side of the house and I said oh well we're
fine. Then when the contractors came out to give us some bids and they said
well no, this is the street, you've got to be 60 feet from the middle of 'the
_ road. We measured and we were 10 feet into the setback at that point but I
guess that 60 feet isn' t right now.
''
14-1
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yes, it's 30 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the
' property line.
Leigh Colby: I think if you would have seen the property, you would understand
that you can not.. .
-
' Councilman Johnson: I'm friends with your next door neighbors. I've been down
on your block many times.
Leigh Colby: And if the restriction is that we also maintain trees along there,
even if they're knocked down, I'm more than happy to comply with that because
' that's what we'd do anyhow.
Councilman Johnson: And when you get transferred to Arizona next year and the
new neighbor's in there and he doesn't like the view of the trees, he cuts than
' down. The ordinance is for protection for the long term. It's just like we're
talking about covenants before. Once you leave, they're unenforceable and
everybody says no, I'm going to live there until I die.
' Leigh Colby: I think most ordinances are written with common sense in mind and
everybody who's walked it off agrees that aesthetically it really fits in. It
' really is a common sense issue.
Councilman Johnson: And we've turned down other things that appear to be common
sense and aesthetically beneficial.
' Judy Colby: Have you approved things that don't have any common sense behind
it? —
Councilman Johnson: Yes, because by law we had to.
Councilwoman Dimler: I also looked at the property. I guess my impression was
' that that was the side yard. I've always thought of that as the side yard and
so I was surprised that by legal description it was the front yard. I think
they meet 3 of. the 5 conditions and I would be in favor of granting this
' particular variance because Laredo ends in a circle and there's a lake behind
it. It will never go further. I can't see anything that we would want to do to
the street that we couldn't do that would be injurious to city property.
Leigh Colby: You're not going to make it a four lane?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, it's never going to be four lane.
Councilman Johnson: Ursual, can I ask you a question? If you're going to
consider this a side yard, they'll still need a side yard variance if this was a
' side yard because they're going 1 foot in.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they meet that.
Councilman Johnson: No they don't. It's a 10 foot side yard setback I think so
they would need a 1 foot variance. If they can cut this back 1 foot, they could
meet the side yard.
1 28
.:*sf
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
Councilwoman Dimler: We talked about this at the Board of Adjustment and II
Appeals and there is room for a sidewalk or a trail or whatever we might want to
put in there. Then also, the trees are there that you can't see it from the
II
road.
Councilman Johnson: But they could also cut it back to a 20 foot instead of 21
foot and meet the side yard setback if you want to call this a side yard.
II
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine, if that's what you want.
Leigh Colby: It would just be that one tip. So you're saying, if I bevel the II
notch, bevel the one corner then I'll comply.
Judy Colby: Because the road curves out there so our only problem with be down II
in the corner.
Councilman Johnson: If you're going to grant a variance to this, I think one of
II
the logical ways to do it, if you want to make it to where other people can't
copy it, is to say in essence this is a side yard and they would not need a side
yard variance so you would have to modify it where you would not need a side
II
yard variance. I have a little trouble calling it a side yard since it's up
against a street but I think you'll probably muster the votes to grant this
somehow or another without me but I'm going to continue what I continued 2 years II ago of not liking variances. I'll still give you my ideas on, if I hadn't taken
this stand 2 years ago that I wouldn't grant variances unless there was a real
I hardship shown, I don't see the hardship here. Sorry to interrupt you.
i
Councilwoman Dimler: That's okay, you do all the time.
Councilman Workman: I apologize because I was unable to get out there today. II You were on my schedule and the hours turned into minutes very quickly. I would
like to get out there to see it. I don't obviously have a hard and fast rule
towards variances. I think one of the reasons Ursula's on the Council is
because she's open minded and can look at things in practical ways. Not that we
II
need to give them to everybody but to look at it. I guess I would like to look
at it a little closer than from a piece of paper which is what I have done so
far. I apologize again. So not to delay your construction time or anything I
II
guess I'd like to see this tabled so that I might have an opportunity to get out
there. Perhaps talk to Willard and Carol and get some more input.
Councilman Boyt: Before you consider tabling, I'd like to comment on this. I
There are, for the benefit of the rest of the people out there who may be
wondering what's going on, ordinances are written through a rather lengthy
process of public hearings and trying to clearly define what the concerns are
II
and meet those concerns with a particular ordinance. State statute makes it
very difficult to vary from an ordinance unless you want to rewrite it and go
through the public hearing process again. A variance is changing an ordinance
II
so there's 5 criteria because if we grant a variance as Judy and Leigh have
pointed out, you've granted variances in the past like this, I expect you to
grant it for me. I can assure you that if any one of you comes in here with a
I similar kind of problem and the need to move 21 feet into your front yard II
t setback, you're going to reference this case and say tell me what's diffeeent.
?� So every time we do this, the State says you're supposed to follow the 5
criteria that they set up. This, by no stretch of the imagination matches those
II
29 1
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
criteria and I would suggest that if the Council insists upon passing this, that
you best direct the City Attorney to find facts that support you.
rLeigh Colby: Bill, you said that this sets aside an ordinance. In effect
negates it and most ordinances are written to cover a multitude of things but
' they can't address every unique circumstance and a variance is not a set aside
but acknowledging that not all circumstances are quite what was anticipated when
the ordinance was written.
' Councilman Boyt: Leigh, I agree with you but, you've clearly got some crowd
support here. One of the 5 criteria is that you have a unique situation.
That's 1 of the 5 and as I mentioned earlier when I attended the meeting, I
' agree that you have a unique piece of land. Being a pie shaped piece of
property but you have a house that meets all city codes including the need for a
garage on that piece of property and that's all the City guarantees when they
' give a person a building permit is that your house will meet our codes. Now to
go beyond that and say well but we'll give you the right to extend into any of
those setbacks, if you meet the other criteria, then yes we need to have sort of
flexibility to do it. One of the other pieces of criteria is that this is not a
self-created hardship. I don't see how you can define your own purchases as
not being self-created. They weren't acts of God. They weren't things that
were out of your control. There is another one of the criteria is that it not
' be injurous to your neighborhood. I think you've demonstrated that your
neighbors feel this is not injurous. The ones I've talked to agree that they
don't see this as injurous to them.
Leigh Colby: Most of them see it as an upgrade.
Councilman Boyt: And it quite well could be in that regard. The other is that
' you need to have a situation which is a hardship. Not an economic hardship but
something that you can't overcome. That there's no way to overcome it. I don't
think that since your house already meets City Codes, I don't think there's
' anything there that you need to overcome. Where we have adjusted these in the
past has been when somebody has been on a lake lot. They didn't have a garage.
They wanted a garage. City Code requires a garage and we gave them the right to
build into that front yard setback to do that. You don't have that situation
' Leigh. There is a quandry here. I'm sure when Tom goes out and looks at this
he's going to say, well in your individual situation it looks like a pretty low
impact thing. If the Council votes to approve this, I don't see how they can
' turn down anybody's request who comes in and says I want to extend my house. I'm
going to have another child. I need another bedroom and so what if it goes 21
feet into my setback from the front street. I'll put trees up. I don't see how
we could turn that down and be fair.
Judy Colby: Look at my house and say that that's not the front of my house.
It's the side of my home.
Councilman Boyt: It's legally defined.
' Judy Colby: But it's the side of my house and I want to add onto the side of my
house.
Councilman Boyt: Well you're adding onto the side of your house that projects
to the front street.
30
Ls_
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 '
I
Leigh Colby: What I would recommend is that we table this. I think if you take
a look at it, you'll find out it really would be a very tasetful addition.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we're at that particular point for Tom to really take a
look and review this. I'd like to second that motion to table it.
Councilman Workman: I guess if I could make one more comment. My vote has
already been predicted I guess. If in fact a variance is always going to be a
precedented situation, then I'm going to assume that if you have any space
behind your yard, it will probably be condemned by Bill Boyt for a park very
soon so to set precedence. I would like to take it on a parcel by parcel basis
and that's what I intend to do. I do move to table. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I'm seconding that.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the front yard setback
variance request for 7307 Laredo Drive until the next City Council meeting. All
voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. '
■• _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND WEST OF POWERS BLVD., ECKANKAR CHURCH, PETER BECK.
�l J`
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Avenue
South representing Eckankar. We have nothing much to add Mr. Mayor to the
proceedings of the earlier meetings except to summarize what we have done in
response to the Council's request at the last meeting. Everything that I'm
going to cover tonight is addressed in the letter which we delivered and I
believe is in your packet dated May 17, 1989 but perhaps for the benefit of
those in the audience I'll just briefly review the steps we have taken in the
last month. The City Council requested that a baseline environmental study be
done of those portions of the property encompassing the former farmsteads and '
then the proposed development site for the church. What we did in response to
that request was retain the firm of Protox Inc. to conduct such an environmental
site assessment. In fact we directed them to cover the entire property in this
assessment. Their study was, we asked them as the experts to recommend to us an
appropriate study for this piece of property and under the circumstances and
then we met on site with city officials including the City Planner and Public
Safety Director to insure that the proposed scope was adequate and appropriate
and acceptable to the City. After that point then we contracted with Protox and
they conducted a study. Although I'll summarize briefly their findings, the
entire report that they submitted to us has been submitted to the City. The
study included a visual and magnetometer survey of the entire property with
special emphasis on the two farmstead sites and the proposed development site.
The study also included subsurface soil vapor sampling at any location which the
magnetometer or the visual survey indicated warranted further investigation.
Then also a number of other randomly selected samples. The results of the study
were that there was no evidence of any contamination anywhere on the property
and that the construction activities as proposed can proceed without danger. of
environmental contamination from hazardous materials. Protox did recommend that
3 wells on the property be abandoned. That an underground storage tank
discovered next to where an old shed was on the south farm, be removed. That a
31 ,
, ITY 0 F A DATE: May 22 , 1989__
���� ' C.C. DATE:
f Y CASE NO: 89-3 Variance
_ Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
I
I PROPOSAL: Twenty-one Foot Variance to the Required 30 Foot
Front Yard Setback.
Iz
I LOCATION: Lot 9 , Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition
' Q.. APPLICANT: Leigh and Judy Colby
7307 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
i
I
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
II ACREAGE:
DENSITY: r/ .Z'.i.;i=r
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF ; single family --' 7_,.,,._
IS- RSF; single family
E- RSF; single family C ` �^ d - �, {�
Q W- RSF; single family ;,—
IW WATER AND SEWER: Available to site
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains an existing single
family residence with 4 large mature
trees along the front lot lines
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
1
`'V ^'_'"T1R:R s \l'.
L O T U S \ —6900•- -- .- :Ail?, %
�� \ .i:.41111111rigli.- ` : 7000
�A m� ' UD—R ,, 1 �i�At�� �. . T.
1
ilk t 1 VI j WA 00 cl. NAP` ______/ '1 jillit■ (I(
' --7100 Li) . IrsAktimayi ,
i0 t;
UCfrzlrn. 60i--- ( t=f_Ora,P"t 0 ;\ ' 7200 I t•
���,■��� z 730C
,,- I ,, i.m. ....-- aii"ha \, ,( 0 ._
G wilwri it 1)46
�\
R i _ �! �c�i�;*Oh, �'.� - 1�, ; 7400 1 tebtO\k
R 1 ' rT'R ;el','� :t, 12 c
cco
�� SA ►i , ; ...>>P '�I ' , .` \ 0
E miri 44, - --= ., cr+
R 12 y / #O LitiiJ .r 4 1
iu
_ 2 I
am �� ' CM II... ', w TH ST.
B G P o_!!., C 3 D LII -mit c,,,
l
3 I 011
• R. ��=-r it `ir ,� ; & wr cm libililla-. 37.
Y - -
IGMWA 'mime 4 • - \ t :„ .. l
NP a .I.�X41 0 0•
co
i►i � R'j�� !t►� .. 8100 —
(if . fk,..... _ Rm.a woe . , co
'
1 '' uv 'r g!?� ,, _ _ 8
200 C
•
,A JA ANC > 1
\_,S ae� r i
-8300
LAKE SUSAN
RD --‹-' ?/CE - sue a
�r , L KE
/� ° :. NI �_� .,
1 . .
' Colby Variance
May 22 , 1989
Page 2
' Applicable Regulations
Residential Single Family District requires a front yard setback
of 30 feet.
ANALYSIS
The applicant currently has an existing house with a two car
garage. The subject property has two driveways, one on the south
' side of the property which services the front of the house and
one on the north side of the property which services the rear of
the house and the existing garage. The applicant is requesting a
' variance to construct a second garage and deck on the western
side of the house adjacent to the front lot line. The garage
will be constructed into a hill and the deck will be constructed
along the south side of the garage at the front of the house.
The proposed addition will be 21 ' wide and will be located
approximately 9 feet from the front property line ( #1) .
Therefore, a 21 foot variance to the front yard setback is
required.
The applicant is requesting the proposed addition so that they
have a storage area for their truck and boat which are currently
1 stored outside on the southerly asphalt drive. The proposed
garage and deck will be screened by existing mature vegetation
along the front property lot line and by the fact that it will be
built into an existing hill. The applicant has submitted a peti-
tion from the surrounding property owners stating that they are
in favor of the variance so that the applicant will have addi-
tional storage for their truck and boat ( #2) .
The applicant must prove hardship for a variance to be approved
by the Board of Adjustments or the City Council. Although the
applicant currently has a two car garage, they are stating that
their hardship is that they have an additional truck and boat
which must be stored outside and that they and their neighbors
' would prefer that the boat and truck be stored inside. The pro-
posed deck will be on the south side of the proposed garage and
will not be increasing the required 'setback over and above the
1 garage.
RECOMMENDATION
' Should the Board of Adjustments recommend approval of Variance
Request #89-3 as shown on the site plan dated May 15 , 1989, staff
is recommending the following conditions :
' 1. The addition must maintain a setback of at least 9 feet from
the front lot line.
2 . The existing spruce and oak trees shall remain to serve as
screening of the proposed garage and deck.
r
1
Colby Variance
May 22, 1989
Page 3
3. The applicant will provide grading plans and details for city
approval which shows how the trees will be preserved during
the construction of the garage and deck. 1
STAFF UPDATE
On May 22 , 1989, the City Council tabled action until the City '
Council could visit the site (Attachment #5 ) . Since then, the
developer of Sunrise Hills submitted a letter stating that no
structures were permitted in the front yard ( #6) . The City
Council is not responsible for enforcement of private covenants
and restrictions. If the City Council grants the variance and
the garage-deck are constructed, then the applicant is in viola-
tion of the Sunrise Hills covenants and restrictions which is a
private legal matter.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION '
Should the City Council recommend approval of Variance Request
#89-3 as shown on the site plan dated May 15, 1989, staff is
recommending the following conditions :
1 . The addition must maintain a setback of at least 9 feet from
the front lot line.
2 . The existing spruce and oak trees shall remain to serve as
screening of the proposed garage and deck.
3 . The applicant will provide grading plans and details for city
approval which shows how the trees will be preserved during
the construction of the garage and deck.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site plan showing the proposed garage and deck and existing
conditions of the site.
2 . Petition from the applicant.
3 . Proposed site plan dated May 15 , 1989 .
4 . Application.
5 . City Council minutes dated May 22 , 1989 .
6 . Letter from Robert Scholer dated June 5 , 1989 .
1
1
1
'-fi,i. � =e'<... y;_ . _ ...rte f- t ,
' a �• • • •` s - � # { �....� �'..
-,- •t //�
'14,.Ff k:l.;i r, -- •-` +4 F a .6 .}i:.a _ J..
t i' ?�1r .r IJ \\� .
"'cf.' • • •' Y / r/" /' •!
■
. \ ,
Cr t
41:1 —•
•
Jr a• J ,• �.
•_?]- ti' l ,i'-'i''''',:i.iii 7 . ,, .
i
% ;;1.tl;i r i Stl
1 1 1 1• 1 ., A-•/ i 1 r `�_—
ti,
' j ' ' - • - • , — ,I --- cn
I
•
'� i .i ,h Irf 'ri _,-o I —Q =
� 4 }If �p; ' 1 1( SN' .,,,A.;-
�•
' f rl,i ; 5 X11 r -+
• I it r tip.
•" T
i �----• .
.' , , /
j
i ti!I ...6r 7.
v '4
•
'r. 0 :i ...." 7 Z--• ..\4
•
\\Y, __ '�'--'
( i ("
.
„ ( .
.' 1
. -
I
PROPERTY LIST FOR CODE VARIANCE
, . ,
•
7307 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota I
..
, ...
I, the undersigned resident and nearby neighbor of the property
listed above agree to the following: 1) I have reviewed the I
blueprints and drawings for the proposed combined deck and
...,,..•
double garage addition for the property at 7307 Laredo Drive; 2) I ..
. •.: ,,, .find the Colby's request for a variance to extend their homestead
1
' - on the west end of their home 21 feet towards Laredo Drive to a
..., ., , ,, reasonable request; 3) I feel that this addition would be
:'
, '1.',.:,, .!f,-esthetically acceptable for the neighborhood; and 4) I would ,.,:”
v. -) definetly prefer this addition as compared to having the Colby,s
continue to store their truck and boat out in the open. 44,
PRINTED NAME & ADDRESS WRITTEN SIGNATURE DATE
.11
en -2,505 kartcio ,b.(. C-,\ •--\( :,‘: ,-._c---s. a.i,2m■, M
. e: ,*:
I i
/c.- - „ 71-;.•, Ls ' i=?,), 4,,,,,,,,, /7/. ,, ,_,, :___ _ r) 61-".:-.4-.*-..___--
40)19-te-' 4 Ai f-P_ tl 71J1,, , I
NI
, b46? 4kycl 1
-,1
30
I
4.r• - "ff,.!.;, , - , --..,_ _
I
-i-:- *P----:1: . -- - , ------
I. il, agli64,3 73A .9,,,, r/t54-z M., 4.--p—vs.„-Ii\R_;.--"-N' .' --7-,-.--y■ -57// /8'9 I
I
•
-
• /
.., :,
( 1
I.1 ,
G--e-•rr-Li i k&c 6.r Niu,e __a/1,, Az._ g_ca,e 73d (it,i-feb.0
/ cc
1
5-6A, &ti)-ik, 3
_Slc /E/9
a / 1 • ) - & 4,' 9 3 33 &WV/I/et.' rPa:VI
• i
, . ...
•_ ,. ,.,..............„:„ ......:.,aaita
lt........--.........................—..-...‘
t CARDARELLE & ASSOCIArS, INC. Land Surveyors den Prairie, MN 55344
rtt mat' t u ep
' Sur_
vey For Leigh-Colby Book Page File 892.25
7307 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, YIN 55317
•
V /"
I / l,",2
< qr
� Scale: 1"=40 '
I j
"Yt� �/ • ■
/I99v i ' \,c
4 J
9 S■
f '_
c P z o :'0 .
U " Q Ex's, n,'� wood *"r*..,c.
. ..., t.4 . .#4
r a -
iti tf
,
B,T, / Drive, , h ■
' -_`_- - - 1 - .- - `
it .'' r -75. Fa)
ys,,L� --�co . - If
-
My 15/ I C1
1 _.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey
I of the boundaries of Lot 9, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Add.
Hennepin County, Minnesota, and of the location of all buildings ' thereon,
I and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on s land - rveyed by me
this 10th day of May , 19 89 �j
CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. RQV 5-'.2. 8, by � / { ��_�r!z�-^
Phone : (612) 941-3031 Stat Rea. No. ;'0f
II
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - r •
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900 _ - II
APPLICANT: /...e.-1311 q J04,/ ()o l f>y OWNER: .\A nhn E
ADDRESS 173c)7 1.142Eod 021L) ADDRESS - II
Zip Code Zip Code I
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 9�y. 7 r)y pL TELEPHONE 9.' y 6,- r7 f
REQUEST:
-----z:-- 1
Zoning District Change _ Planned Unit Development
• Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan II
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision - II
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds II
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
II
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME I
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION II
PRESENT ZONING
• REQUESTED ZONING II
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY II
LOCATION , ( L'i% ,:_-1 - /L / ,'-.-- -z--. --&-,,X 2', /-'-' (2,W li
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
yrt/ ,�, � ,- ' L '6/4‘'`'t' II
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) II
11.
11 ' ' City of Chanhassen
I Land Development Application
Page 2
IFILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten
clearly printed and must be-accompanied by all information an or
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions od
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
I applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION: -
•
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby
certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of call
II applicable City Ordinances .
Signed B .._ ^L l � �, -
/ Applicant Date %/jZ-4. A / •.P7
I
IThe undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
I
Signed By
Fee Owner Date
IDate Application Received
Application Fee Paid
ICity Receipt No. ,
•
1r
I * This Application will be considered by the Plannin
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their g Commission/
meeting.
•
I .. .
City Council Meeting _ r21 22, 1989 s''
lr- FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY. II
Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments met before the City Council and two
II
voted for denial of the variance and one voted in favor of it. The applicant is
.requesting a 21 foot front yard variance to the front yard setback for an
additional garage and deck. I've got a blueprint that you can pass down to show
the whole property because I don't have the visual.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Is Judy Colby here?
Leigh Colby: Our home was built on a rather unusually shaped piece of property. II
It's not the normal rectangular shape that most of the homes have and what is
legally defined as a front yard really is our back yard and that's how we use
II
the area where we hope to have a combined deck and garage. The plans that we're
working off of were actually drawn up 10 years ago from previous owners and is
designed so the face of the house is continuous. It's designed to look
naturally as part of the house but what you should look at very closely is the
II
fact that part of the garage unit, the northwest corner, actually comes over the
line and that's what we're asking for a variance on. From the street we've got
3 very large evergreen trees. You cannot see the house from the street so this
II
is a very private area. Add to the fact that this, Laredo Drive is a dead end
and it really is a very private area. That's why we use it as a back yard in
terms of the way the house is laid out. In terms of why we want the garage, we
IIhave no place to put one of our vehicles and a boat and with our 15 year old, we
would expect to have another car and want to be able to store that also so those
Iright now are sitting outside. That's the reason for the request for the
garage. The garage that we have is very small. It's a tuck under and it was
II
built in 1961. I don't know if you've been in a garage that's about 17 feet
wide but fortunately they're making cars smaller these days. We did ask at the
earlier meeting tonight if they've granted waivers of this in the past and
II
apparently they have so I don't really think that we're asking for much of a
variance.
Judy Colby: We're asking for a front yard setback but i.t's to the side of our I
house so if you will imagine your house and wanting to put in a garage, and it's
a tuck under garage so it goes into the dirt. We have to excavate the dirt out.
If you imagine putting that on the side of your house and a deck on top of it I
and no one will be able to see that, and like he mentioned, our garage is so
small we get two vehicles in but nothing else so our recreation room now has
become for the bikes and the sleds and everything else. But I went around the II whole cul-de-sac to all the homes within 500 feet and everyone signed because
they don't want our boat and our truck up in the front of our yard as we don't.
We would like to get that i.n. And when we purchased the house, i.t's part of an
association that has that beachlot so we don' t have a place to dock a boat so
II
you have to keep your boat on your premises. You can't keep it down at the lake
but we have a beachlot and a place to put the boat in. Then also we saw these
plans that you saw, plans that were drawn up by the people before we purchased
II
the house so when we saw those plans, we never assumed there'd be any problem
adding a garage on there for our extra vehicle and boat. Then when we found out
that yes, it's the side of your house but it's the front yard, we said no. It's
not the front yard. This is the front yard so it just doesn't seem like, and we I
i got all the signatures in the neighborhood. There was no on opposed. In face
we probably have a couple neighbors right now saying please let them put their
truck in the garage. I
25 1
City Council Meeting - Mal 2, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
[-
II Councilman Boyt: Well I do have one. Are you aware of the covenants of the
Association?
Leigh Colby: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Are there any covenants in there about setbacks?
Leigh Colby: Not that I'm aware of. Most of the covenants have to do with
building sheds and that sort of thing. Detached from the house. I'm not aware
of any other.
Judy Colby: We did ask the treasurer to look into that and they didn't find
' anything.
Mayor Chmiel: I did take a look at your location. You're at a cul-de-sac
portion and it's a dead end road basically other than the other access to the
residences there. I did notice a boat out in front in your first driveway as
you come down. Of course there was one car in the garage at the time. Probably
the second one was coming home.
Judy Colby: The truck's being used by a friend. I wish that would have been in
the driveway for you.
Leigh Colby: You would have understood. It's 20 years old.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're looking for basically is a 21 foot variance
to the front yard setback which is required. The proposed addition is going to
be 21 feet wide, is that correct?
Leigh Colby: That's right. And driving down the hill, the only thing you would
see coming down Laredo to the cul-de-sac is the redwood deck. You would not
actually see the garage. That would be about a foot above ground level and most
of that would sheltered by the trees.
Councilman Johnson: I don't remember in the past 2 1/2 years granting 21
foot variances to front yard setbacks. g an y
Judy Colby: For the side of a house?
Councilman Johnson: To a front yard setback to where we're getting within 9
foot of the street right-of-way. In a POD we've gone to 5 feet from the street
right-of-way. It's a bad precedence to start. I don't see the hardship.
Because you own an ugly truck is not a hardship. I sold my ugly truck. Of
course it didn' t run. Your's obviously runs since you loaned it to somebody.
Leigh Colby: I think you saw the property, you would understand that you cannot
see it. I mean you cannot see it.
Judy Colby: And the 9 foot, what you're talking about is you've got quite a few
feel back to these huge trees and then there's this space which is dead so if
that's our front yard, if you want to call it our front yard, you're stopping us
26
City Council Meeting 4- 117 22, 1989
from using our front yard because you want more feet to do with I don't know
what you'll do because you'd have plenty of room for a sidewalk in front of
those trees. '
Councilman Johnson: That's the only place you could put it on city property.
Judy Colby: Right, and you have plenty of room without touching our trees there
to put a sidewalk. I can't imagine what other use you'd have for that. Those
trees will remain.
Councilman Johnson: Unless we have a spruce disease and the trees die and then
we've got a house...
Judy Colby: Then we'll put a different tree in because we want the privacy.
Leigh Colby: That's part of the plan is that the trees provide some privacy.
We have absolutely no other place on the property that we can expand in any way
because of the unusual orientation.
Mayor Chmiel: You have a pie shaped lot basically. I
Leigh Colby: Yes. It should have been a smaller 2 story home turned the right
way.
Councilman Johnson: We shouldn't have approved the pie shaped lot 20 years ago
or whenever either. We don't approve those anymore or try not to. I still,
} when we grant one, everybody comes in and says, well you did it for these folks
and we want exactly the same thing. Then it gets kind of like potato chips or
whatever. You had one, somebody else wants another. It just keeps going.
Judy Colby: I think it's been obvious that the variance must have been granted
to some people though because you haven't gone along those 5 restrictions that
you have to prove and that's what we were told. And there was this drawing that
we saw that we assumed we could do. That was an assumption and that was our
fault for not checking into it but when you soc the architectural drawing of
something, when you're buying a house then you think, well good, then we don't
have to store something in our front yard. Like I said, our regular garage is
so small that we literally get 2 cars in only. Imagine your garage, if you have
a normal house, and not being able to store anything but 2 cars in there.
Councilman Johnson: When did you buy this? '
Leigh Colby: 3 years ago.
Councilman Johnson: And at that time you were expecting to build onto the
garage as part of it and you didn't check to see if you could?
Judy Colby: Well we just did now when we were going to add to it. By the look
of it we thought we had plenty of feet from the side of the house and I did call
and ask what was a variance from the side of the house and I said oh well we're
fine. Then when the contractors came out to give us some bids and they said
well no, this is the street, you've got to be 60 feet from the middle of'the
road. We measured and we were 10 feet into the setback at that point but I
guess that 60 feet isn' t right now. ,
27
City Council Meeting - Mr( 22, 1989
•
Councilman Johnson: Yes, it's 30 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the
property line.
[-
II
Leigh Colby: I think if you would have seen the property, you would understand
that you can not...
' Councilman Johnson: I'm friends with your next door neighbors. I've been down
on your block many times.
Leigh Colby: And if the restriction is that we also maintain trees along there,
even if they're knocked down, I'm more than happy to comply with that because
' that's what we'd do anyhow.
Councilman Johnson: And when you get transferred to Arizona next year and the
new neighbor's in there and he doesn't like the view of the trees, he cuts than
' down. The ordinance is for protection for the long term. It's just like we're
talking about covenants before. Once you leave, they're unenforceable and
everybody says no, I'm going to live there until I die.
' Leigh Colby: I think most ordinances are written with common sense in mind and
everybody who's walked it off agrees that aesthetically it really fits in. It
really is a common sense issue.
Councilman Johnson: And we've turned down other things that appear
sense and aesthetically beneficial. g pig t o be common
Judy Colby: Have you approved things that don't have any common sense behind
it?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, because by law we had to.
Councilwoman Dimler: I also looked at the property. I guess my impression was
that that was the side yard. I've always thought of that as the side yard and
so I was surprised that by legal description it was the front yard. I think
they meet 3 of the 5 conditions and I would be in favor of granting this
' particular variance because Laredo ends in a circle and there's a lake behind
it. It will never go further. I can't see anything that we would want to do to
the street that we couldn't do that would be injurious to city property.
Leigh Colby: You're not going to make it a four lane?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, it's never going to be four lane.
' Councilman Johnson: Ursual, can I ask you a question? If you're going to
consider this a side yard, they'll still need a side yard variance if this was a
side yard because they're going 1 foot in.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they meet that.
' Councilman Johnson: No they don't. It's a 10 foot side yard setback I think so
they would need a 1 foot variance. If they can cut this back 1 foot, they could
meet the side yard. •• •■
i 28
City Council Meeting - ',1 22, 1989 `
k
Councilwoman Dimler: We talked about this at the Board of Adjustment and I
i _ Appeals and there is room for a sidewalk or a trail or whatever we might want to
put in there. Then also, the trees are there that you can't see it from the
1 road. II
Councilman Johnson: But they could also cut it back to a 20 foot instead of 21
foot and meet the side yard setback if you want to call this a side yard. II
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine, if that's what you want.
Leigh Colby: It would just be that one tip. So you're saying, if I bevel the II
notch, bevel the one corner then I'll comply.
Judy Colby: Because the road curves out there so our only problem with be down II
:'—in the corner-:,-: - ., -
'
_ Councilman Johnson: If you're going to grant a variance to this, I think one of
II
: the logical ways to do it, if you.want to make it to where other people can't
copy it, is to say in essence this is-a side yard and they would not need a side
yard variance so you would have to modify it where you would not need a side
II
yard variance. - I have a little trouble calling it a side yard since it's up
against a street but I think you'll probably muster the votes to grant this
somehow or another without- me but I'm going to continue what I continued 2 years II ago of not liking variances. I'll still give you my ideas on, if I hadn't taken
this stand 2 years ago that I wouldn't grant variances unless there was a real
hardship shown, I don't see the hardship here. Sorry to interrupt you.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's okay, you do all the time.
Councilman Workman: I apologize because I was unable to get out there today.
II
- You were on my schedule and the hours turned into minutes very quickly. I would
like to get out there to see it. I don't obviously have a hard and fast rule
towards variances. I think one of the reasons Ursula's on the Council is
.because she's open minded and can look at things in practical ways. Not that we I
'need to give them to everybody but to look at it. I guess I would like to look
. at it a little closer than from a piece of paper which is what I have done so
, far. I apologize again. So not to delay your construction time or anything I
II
:guess I'd like to see this tabled so that I might have an opportunity to get out
- there. Perhaps talk to Willard and Carol and get some more input.
..,_ Councilman Boyt: Before you consider tabling, I'd like to comment on this. II
There are, for the benefit of the rest of the people out there who may be
:wondering what's going on, ordinances are written through a rather lengthy
process of public hearings and trying to clearly define what the concerns are
II
and meet those concerns with a particular ordinance. State statute makes it
very difficult to vary from an ordinance unless you want to rewrite it and go
through the public hearing process again. A variance is changing an ordinance
II
so there's 5 criteria because if we grant a variance as Judy and Leigh have
pointed out, you've granted variances in the past like this, I expect you to
grant it for me. I can assure you that if any one of you comes in here with a
similar kind of problem and the need to move 21 feet into your front yard II
! setback, you're going to reference this case and say tell me what's different.
So every time we do this, the State says you're supposed to follow the 5
criteria that they set up. This, by no stretch of the imagination matches those I
29 I
II, _ City Council Meeting - Mal(2, 1989
criteria and I would suggest that if the Council insists upon passing this, that
you best direct the City Attorney to find facts that support you.
Leigh Colby: Bill, you said that this sets aside an ordinance. In effect
negates it and most ordinances are written to cover a multitude of things but
' they can't address every unique circumstance and a variance is not a set aside
but acknowledging that not all circumstances are quite what was anticipated when
the ordinance was written.
' Councilman Boyt: Leigh, I agree with you but, you've clearly got some crowd
support here. One of the 5 criteria is that you have a unique situation.
That's 1 of the 5 and as I mentioned earlier when I attended the meeting, I
' agree that you have a unique piece of land. Being a pie shaped piece of
property but you have a house that meets all city codes including the need for a
garage on that piece of property and that's all the City guarantees when they
' give a person a building permit is that your house will meet our codes. Now to
go beyond that and say well but we'll give you the right to extend into any of
those setbacks, if you meet the other criteria, then yes we need to have sort of
flexibility to do it. One of the other pieces of criteria is that this is not a
1 self-created hardship. I don't see how you can define your own purchases as
not being self-created. They weren't acts of God. They weren't things that
were out of your control. There is another one of the criteria is that it not
' be injurous to your neighborhood. I think you've demonstrated that your
neighbors feel this is not injurous. The ones I've talked to agree that they
don't see this as injurous to them.
Leigh Colby: Most of them see it as an upgrade.
Councilman Boyt: And it quite well could be in that regard. The other is that
you need to have a situation which is a hardship. Not an economic hardship but
something that you can't overcome. That there's no way to overcome it. I don't
think that since your house already meets City Codes, I don't think there's
anything there that you need to overcome. Where we have adjusted these in the
past has been when somebody has been on a lake lot. They didn't have a garage.
They wanted a garage. City Code requires a garage and we gave them the right to
build into that front yard setback to do that. You don't have that situation
' Leigh. There is a quandry here. I'm sure when Tom goes out and looks at this
he's going to say, well in your individual situation it looks like a pretty low
impact thing. If the Council votes to approve this, I don't see how they can
1 turn down anybody's request who comes in and says I want to extend my house. I'm
going to have another child. I need another bedroom and so what if it goes 21
feet into my setback from the front street. I'll put trees up. I don't see how
we could turn that down and be fair.
' Judy Colby: Look at my house and say that that's not the front of my house.
It's the side of my home.
' Councilman Boyt: It's legally defined.
Judy Colby: But it's the side of my house and I want to add onto the side of my
house.
Councilman Boyt: Well you're adding onto the side of your house that projects
to the front street.
' 30
City Council Meeting y 22, 1989 .'
Al
1
Leigh Colby: What I would recommend is that we table this. I think if you take
a look at it, you'll find out it really would be a very tasetful addition. '
Mayor_ Chmi.el: I think we're at that particular point for Tom to really take a
look and review this. I'd like to second that motion to table it.
Councilman Workman: I guess if I could make one more comment. ' vote has
already been
y predicted I guess. If in fact a variance is always going to be a
precedented situation, then I'm going to assume that if you have any space
behind your yard, it will probably be condemned by Bill Boyt for a park very
soon so to set precedence. I would like to take it on a parcel by parcel basis
and that's what I intend to do. I do move to table. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'm seconding that.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmi.el seconded to table the front yard setback
variance request for 7307 Laredo Drive until the next City Council meeting.
Boyt who opposed All
voted in favor except Councilman Bo '
y pposed and the motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND WEST OF POWERS BLVD., ECKANKAR CHURCH, PETER BECK.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Avenue
South representing Eckankar. We have nothing much to add Mr. Mayor to the
proceedings of the earlier meetings except to summarize what we have done in
response to the Council's request at the last meeting. Everything that I'm
going to cover tonight is addressed in the letter which we delivered and I
believe is in your packet dated May 17, 1989 but perhaps for the benefit of
those in the audience I'll just briefly review the steps we have taken in the
last month. The City Council requested that a baseline environmental study be
done of those portions of the property encompassing the former farmsteads and
then the proposed development site for the church. What we did in response to
that request was retain the firm of Protox Inc. to conduct such an environmental
site assessment. In fact we directed them to cover the entire property in this
assessment. Their study was, we asked them as the experts to recommend to us an
appropriate study for this piece of property and under the circumstances and
then we met on site with city officials including the City Planner and Public
Safety Director to insure that the proposed scope was adequate and appropriate
and acceptable to the City. After that point then we contracted with Protox and
they conducted a study. Although I'll summarize briefly their findings, the
entire report that they submitted to us has been submitted to the City. The
study included a visual and magnetometer survey of the entire property with
special emphasis on the two farmstead sites and the proposed development site.
The study also included subsurface soil vapor sampling at any location which the
magnetometer or the visual survey indicated warranted further investigation.
Then also a number of other randomly selected samples. The results of the study
were that there was no evidence of any contamination anywhere on the property
and that the construction activities as proposed can proceed without danger of
environmental contamination from hazardous materials. Protox did recommend that
3 wells on the property be abandoned. That an underground storage tank
discovered next to where an old shed was on the south farm, be removed. That a
31
F
ROBERT A. SCHOLER
Real Estate and Construction
1
June 5 , 1989
Leigh and Judy Colby
7307 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Deal Mr & Mrs Colby:
IRe: Lot 9 Block 1 Sunrise Hills 1st Addn.
Our conversation at the recent progressive dinner prompts me
' to send you a copy of the deed restrictions in Sunrise Hills
1st Addn.
These restrictions were placed on all lots in your
subdivision when the plat was filed and all deeds are given
' subject to those restrictions .
In the early days of Chanhassen there were few ordinances to
protect the property values of homeowners against abuses by
' their neighbors , and so the need for these restrictive
covenants .
They cannot be revoked and the City of Chanhassen cannot
issue variances to them.
' I am sympathetic to your wishes but there is nothing I can
do except ask that you observe the covenants .
Wazm Regards ;
Bob Scholer
cc: City of Chanhassen
I
7212 Frontier Trail • Chanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 934-8008
II
Restrictions - Sunrise Hills, 1st Addition
1
1. All lots shall be known, used, and described as residential lots. No structure
shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot in said plat
other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in heighth
with attached private garage, except as hereafter provided.
2. All garages must be within the dwelling or attached to the dwelling either di-
rectly or by breezeway or other part of dwelling.
3. No shed, shops, or outbuildings of any kind which may be considered unsightly
or objectionable to other residents of said Addition may be erected at any time.
This restriction, however, shall not preclude the construction of sightly or attract-
ive structures for the comfort or enjoyment of owners of the dwelling and his family,
including such structures as non-commercial family greenhouses, playhouses, and
children's play equipment.
4. No structure of a temporary character shall be used as a residence at any time.
5. All buildings hereafter proposed for said Sunrise Hills 1st Addition must be e-
rected by Robert A. Scholer or his assigns. '
6. No building shall be located nearer than 40 feet from the front lot line.
7. No building shall be closer to side lot lines than 12 feet. '
8. The minimum swuare foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway or porches, of
any one-story dwelling shall be 1 ,000 square feet, and of any one and one-half and
two-story dwelling, shall be 1 ,200 square feet, and in case of the latter, both
floors must be finished. The minimum swuare foot area, exclusive of garage and
breezeway or porches, of any dwelling located on a lot with lakeshore frontage shall
be 1 ,200 square feet.
9. The exterior of any dwelling placed on any lot in said Addition shall be covered
with stone, wood, brick, or stucco; and all exterior woodwork must be painted, var-
nished, or stained. The exterior of any dwelling must be finished immediately and
must not be allowed to remain unfinished in any part for more than 6 months from the
date of the beginning of said construction. '
10. No building shall be constructed of concrete blocks or of cinder block construc-
tion.
11. No second-hand materials may be used for any construction.
12. No building may be moved onto any lot. ,
13. No dogs shall be kept in said Addition except those confined strictly to the
owner's property and kept on leash or in control of the owner at all times. Dogs
which are habitually noisy shall be deemed a nuisance and may be eliminated from the
area.
14. No cows, goats, or any domestic or other animal, poultry, or fowl of any kind
shall be kept in said Addition except dogs and cats, and the keeping of dogs,shall
be subject to regulation set forth in the preceding paragraph.
15. No commercial activity of any kind shall be undertaken and carried on upon any
lot in said Addition, but this restriction shall not preclude the pursuit of hobbies
,4
';////"
which are wholly confined within the dwelling and which are not offensive or of a
kind which in any way becomes an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
16. Each owner of any lot shall have the right to use the playground area, provid-
ed by the above-named Robert A. Scholer and Celine R. Scholer for the benefit of
purchasers of lots in said Addition, for-access to and from Lotus Lake by foot. Use
of boat slips and channel shall be subject to nominal charge for installation, maint-
enance, and upkeep thereof. No private docks shall be erected on or from the area
playground and beach. No buildings shall be erected on the area playground and beach
without the permission of Robert A. Scholer. Any and all maintenance and improve-
ment of and in said area playground and beach shall be made at the expense of the
owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills 1st Addition.
17. Landscaping of any lot on which a swelling has been constructed shall be com-
pleted forthwith upon completion of dwelling construction.
18. Robert A. Scholer reserves the right and privilege to regrade any of said lots
owned by him and improve the same by enlarging said lots by consolidating two or
' more lots or any part of any lots, but in no event to reduce the size of final build-
ing sites from the sizes of lots now established.
1
I
1
I
June 6, 1989
Joanne Leigh & Judy Colby
City of Chanhassen 7307 Laredo Drive
City Offices Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317 829-2731 or 934-8774
Dear Joanne:
I am writing the City of Chanhassen to clarify Bob Scholer's June 5, 1989
letter to Judy and I, which he sent you a copy of. Judy and I still wish
to have the City of Chanhassen issue a variance for our proposed addition
at the next City Council meeting so that we may proceed.
Mr. Scholer's letter,which may be correct as stated, errs by omission.
The restrictive covenant against all properties in the Sunrise Hills First
Addition reads as follows:
"...said covenants and restrictions shall run with the land and shall
be binding on all parties hereto....until July 1, 1987,....unless by a
vote of a majority of the then owners of the lots, it is agreed to
change said covenants and restrictions in full or in part." 1
You will note that we have previously supplied you with a list of
signatures from the Sunrise Hills First Addition. We believe that this
represents a majority of the owners in the First Addition. I have since
talked with additional First Addition homeowners up on Highland Trail;
they will also sign if it is necessary. So far, 100% of the homeowners in
the Sunrise Hills First Addition that have reviewed our plans have agreed
and voted with this change.
To summarize all of this, Mr. Scholer's letter does not change anything. '
We ask you to proceed with helping Judy and I obtain approval from the
City Council at Monday's meeting.
SincZrely,
e gh Co •
JUN 81989