Loading...
12. Discussion of Deck Requirements for Chaparral Quad-Units 1 , / ;-.. I , CITY OF „......... „, CHANHASSEN 1 N .),, ,.. . ,.: . . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 •:. -1 c- ; .-: ;•il rjr MEMORANDUM ,i,-i_ TO Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner �'f� - t or DATE: August 18 , 1988 I SUBJ: Discussion of General Conditions for Decks Located in the Chaparral Quad Units I On August 8, 1988, the Board of Adjusments and City Council reviewed a variance request for a deck to be located in the front yard setback in the Chaparral quad units (Attachment #1) . A variance to the front yard setback was approved but the Board of I Adjustments and City Council did not want to permit amending the PUD development contract to permit future decks on the quad units which would also be within front yard setbacks without having to 1 receive a variance. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council felt that they wanted to review each variance request on a case by case basis. Staff suggested at that time 1 that staff provide general conditions for future decks on the quad units . The only housing units which will require front yard setbacks for I the location of decks are the quad units. Each deck permit also has to receive permission from the Cimarron Homeowners Association in addition to city permission. The Cimarron I Homeowners Association will only permit a 10 ' x 10 ' or a 10 ' x 20 ' deck to be constructed on the quad units. Therefore any future decks that will be requested will only extend 10 feet out I from the quad units . Since any future deck requests as part of the Chaparral quad units will have to meet the standards of the Cimarron Homeowners I Association, all of the future variance requests will be similar. Staff feels that if any future variance requests are identical to the previously approved deck variance that the Board of 1 Adjustments and City Council will have a difficult time in denying future variance requests. Further , as a "variance" application, the test of hardship must be proven. Given the history of this issue, it would be more time and cost efficient 1 for both the Council and homeowners for the city to adopt general guidelines as part of a PUD contract. (The cost to each future applicant for the variance would be the $75 application fee plus I the cost of receiving the property owners list which will pro- bably average from $200 to $250 . ) M NI ' II Mr. Don Ashworth August 18, 1988 Page 2 Staff is therefore proposing that the City Council adopt general guidelines for which future decks in the quad units must meet prior to receiving a building permit and if these conditions are met then a variance would not be necessary. These general guide- lines could be adopted by the City Council as part of a PUD contract. Since the farthest out the deck would be permitted by the Cimarron Homeowners Association is 10 feet, staff is recom- mending that any future decks for the quad units be limited to extending 10 feet from the building. Also, in order to maintain an adequate front yard setback, staff is recommending that the proposed deck could not exceed more than 10 feet into the 30 foot front yard setback. This condition would maintain a 20 foot front yard which is consistent with developments such as Fox Hollow. The only other options the City Council could adopt would be to amend the Zoning Ordinance so that Chaparral quad unit decks would have a 'reduced setback or to have the remaining deck requests come in under one variance application. Staff does not recommend amending the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate one speci- fic issue. To require all of the future deck variances to come in at one time would be difficult, since not all know if they want a deck and do not have site plans. If the City Council decides to require variances for future decks 1 they may be tempted to remove the application fee. Staff does not recommend removing the fee since the variance still requires "hard costs" such as public hearing notices, legal ads , and staff time including both secretarial and planning staff. RECOMMENDATION , Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council adopts a PUD contract for the Chaparra quad units which would permit decks to be constructed 10 feet out from the building and maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. " If the PUD contract is not approved, then the City Council should adopt the following general guidelines for future quad unit decks: ' 1 . The decks cannot exceed 10 feet from the building. 2 . A 20 foot front yard setback must be maintained. ' ATTACHMENTS 1 . Board of Adjustment minutes dated August 8 , 1988. 2 . City Council minutes dated August 8 , 1988 . 11 II BOA Minutes ' August 8 , 1988 Page 2 ' Mr. Nelson asked whether or not the garage could be attached. Geving said yes . ' Watson stated that she would prefer the 30 foot front yard set- back to be maintained. Mr. Nelson stated that he needed a 28 foot front yard setback if the garage to be attached. Geving stated that staff had stated in the original report that the garage could meet the 30 foot setback and that there was not any site constraints which would make it so the garage could not ' meet the 30 foot setback. Geving amended his motion to allow only the 3 foot side yard variance and not a front yard variance with the 2 conditions. ' Johnson seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Bill Boyt asked the Board if they would waive the $75 permit fee since it was a reapplication. Geving moved, seconded by Watson, to reimburse the $75 permit fee and that this be done with other reapplications . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Front Yard ar Variance for the Construction of a Deck, 7200 Pontiac ' Circle, Kathryn Hedlund Olsen presented the staff report. ' Watson stated that she was upset that the existing decks had been allowed to be constructed within the front yard setbacks . She stated that when the Chaparral PUD was approved, it was clear ' that no variances would be permitted and that people had worried that the proposal would not meet the city requirements . She also stated that she was not in favor of amending the development ' contract to permit the other decks to be located within the front yard setback and felt that any additional decks located within the front yard should be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments on a case by case basis. Geving stated that when the PUD was approved, there were to be no variances, but that he finds it hard to deny the proposed variance since there are existing decks within the front yard setback. Geving also stated that he was not in favor of amending the contract and would prefer to keep it a case by case review for any additional variances . He stated that he was in favor of granting the variance. SIM II BOA Minutes August 8 , 1988 11 Page 3 Johnson stated that he was not in favor of amending the develop- ment contract and was upset that there was so many other viola- tions with existing decks . Darlene from the Cimarron Homeowners Association stated that the homeowners association only allows a 10 ' x 10 ' or a 10 ' x 20 ' deck and stated that they wished the city would allow future decks to be permitted without a variance. Geving stated that staff will send the Cimarron Homeowner' s Association information on what is permitted for decks to meet the setbacks . Darlene asked if the new applicants would have to incur the variance application fee and expense for the property owners list. Geving stated that he could not answer that because it is a new subject and would have to be discussed by the Board of Adjustments and City Council . Geving moved, seconded by Johnson, to close the public hearing. Geving moved, seconded by Johnson, to approve the front yard set- back variance for the deck with no conditions. Geving and Johnson voted in favor. Watson was opposed. Motion did not carry. It was explained to the applicant that they would be heard by the City Council this same evening. ' Bill Boyt suggested that the item be placed right after the con- sent agenda. Geving moved, seconded by Watson, not to accept staff recommen- dation of amending the development contract. Approval of Minutes Geving moved, seconded by Watson to approve the minutes of July 25 , 1988 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. All ' voted in favor and the motion carried. r I I ICity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 • FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7200 PONTIAC CIRCLE, KATHRYN HEDLUND. 1 17 Councilman Geving: I'd like to start this and suggest that we o report from Jo Ann in a summation of our Board of Adjustments and Appeals.staff ' ppeals. Jo Ann Olsen: What happened is the applicant is applying for a deck on one of the Chaparral quad units. When we reviewed the site plan we found it was in the front yard setback and required to go through the variance procedure. We found ' that almost all of the other quads in that area do have existing decks within the frontyard setback. We couldn't find anything in the development contract for a reduced setback for a deck. A lot of them did not have building permits ' or else had been built as part of the quad when that was constructed. Therefore, we were uncomfortable of recommending denial of this deck since almost every other quad had it. Staff did make a recommendation to amend the development contract to allow a reduced setback for the decks because there are ' existing retaining walls and the decks are just retaining walls but dividing walls. We felt thato that owould resolve tanyefuture requests for the decks. It would appear that in the past that they had been ' approved without receiving variances and we just wanted to somehow clarify the matter for when future deck permits came in rather than requiring them to go through the variance procedure since obviously nobody else has. The Board of ' Adjustments recommended approval of the variance but did not feel that an amendment to the development contract should be approved or that any other additional deck should have to go through the variance procedure also. They also discussed reimbursement for the building permit fee. ' Councilman Geving: I think that's not correct. I I made a motion to approve recommended approval and v The 2 to 1 to deny this variance request,and ato�pass aitt onto the eCouncilTforvote was ' consideration. Councilman Horn: What was the recommendation on the development contract? I ' mean from the Board. Is that what the negative motion meant or the negative motion suggested.., ' Jo Ann Olsen: No, they made two motions. It was 2 in favor and 1 against the variance so the Council would approve it and then they did recommend denial of any amendment to the development contract. ' Councilman Horn: Unanimously? Councilman Caving: Yes. And the reasoning there, if I can interject, we felt that since the possibility of 15 quad units that could come in for a variance, we didn't want to automatically, with a carte blanche amendment to the PUD give everybody a chance to build a deck. For one reason, this particular deck is 10 x 20. There could be any number of decks and any number of different sizes. The Board felt that as a variance committee, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals should look at every variance process and let each one of them come to us and vote on it as a case by case basis. I believe that really would have been the best way to go and still recommending that. That was the reason we voted down the staff's recommendation. Councilman Horn: Why wouldn't the others require a variance? ' 15 City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 \ill Councilman Geving: Good question. They never came before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Our inspectors never caught them and then too li there's some confusion in the quad units themselves. I think or less over the years recognized that some of these were built Board has developer and I think there was some assumption that it was okay to have decks so they by the developer continued to build decks and the inspectors never caught them. So this is really the first case that's come before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals I requesting a variance. Councilman Horn: I remember when this issue came before the Council and I I remember that Councilwoman Watson voted against it for this very reason. She says I don't want to approve a development that's going to lend itself to all II kinds of variance requests. That's exactly what we've got here. I totally agree with not going along with the development contract. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we, Council the time that this development was a person Watson was on the Council at I approved. She had nothing to do with it. Councilman Horn: She might have made the statement on the Planning Commission. Mayor Hamilton: She might have talked about it further on down the road I they were doing some twin homes over there but she had nothing to do with the quads. Not a thing. They were all done. were on here. Not a to That was a long time before you and I II ng a It seems like it's probably some miscommuniicati.on between athe developer ears ago. City since most of those quads were built with the sliding o ndd some of them were built with decks on them as they built them. There were svery few e of them that were built with a window in the particular spot where the glass door would go to go out to the deck. Actually, of them is much better with the 10 x 20 deck than hiteisnwjthout. Same appearance units have put on like a half a deck, II look awful. That doesn't look ood. � l0 x or something. Not that makes it look a deck on, the way it appears good. It detracts from the property but when you on them, it looks very nice. The were don'ta deck put II they're, in my opinion, they're not nice aparin think property at all but the full decks do. g' eY don t add to the Councilman Horn: Do they need a variance? So they all need varia I regardless of whether it's 10 x 10 or 10 x 20? nces Jo Ann Olsen: Right. II Mayor Hamilton: But see when they built those, there was kind of a dividing wall that they built with each building where it was obvious if you put a deck II out, you didn't interfere with your neighbors site. You weren't looking into theirs and they weren't looking into yours so it seemed rather obvious what the were attempting to do at the time they built them. It just wasn't caught. they II Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask staff, is that dividing wall that the Mayor just mentioned, is that on all the quads that are out there? Does that extend 10 foot into the existing setbacks so we have every one of those homes existing i non-conforming with the development contract? II 16 II ■ •ity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: Some of than don't have the dividing walls. Councilman Johnson: What about this particular one? Mayor Hamilton: The only ones that I've seen that don't have it are those that are on the back side. Any of them that face the street have it. ' Councilman Johnson: All of them facing the street have that extending frontyard setback, ndzng into the ' Contractor for Applicant: That particular wall, if I'm not mistaken, extends 12 feet from the permanent structure, not 10. Basically the design for those is to set an angular divider wall from the top of the existing divider wall as privacy ' to the other side. On that particular building we're building on the back side and the request by the Homeowners Association to make an alternate...was a consideration... Councilman Johnson: So what we've got is a structure that is currently non- conforming because it extends 12 feet into, or whatever feet into the setback and what's being requested is a deck not extending as far into it as what is ' existing extending into it. To me, I kind of agree with Tom on this one, is that we let the horse out a long time ago and now we're trying to close the gate. I think that's an old saying of some sort. I don't know what it means ' but, in this case I think I'd like a little more review but I kind of favor a carte blanche with certain restrictions that a deck can not extend more than 10 foot out and it has to have this dividing wall and that it meet certain design criteria. The developer, I don't know what recourse we have against the '1 developer. Whoever built those houses in the first place, built a whole bunch of non-conforming. Councilman Horn: What you're saying is we should encourage future developers to violate their development contracts so we come along afterwards and say it's okay? ' Councilman Johnson: It's no longer the developer there. Now we're oin the homeowner and that's not fair. Can we go back after the developer g o after point? Is the developer violation of his development contract at this int st ' business? per sti ll in a Mayor Hamilton: Maybe it wasn't the developer. Maybe it was our inspector who didn't do the job. What are you going to do then? Councilman Geving: I think it was our inspector. ' Councilman Horn: He didn't catch them. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe it was the Council who didn't catch it when they were ' looking at the development contract. Councilman Johnson: How about this licensed surveyor that did a survey that 11 doesn't show that wall either? I mean here we've got a house. I wonder what the Board of Surveyors or whatever they're called would think of a surveyor that doesn't catch a 12 foot long wall. 17 --City Council Meeti.ng - August 8, 1988 ‘4\Si Councilman Boyt: How many quad homes are out there? Darlene Loving: 156 units. Councilman Boyt: 40 then about. Darlene Loving: 40 guards, correct. And that does not include the twin homes that are down the block in Chaparral. II Councilman Boyt: How many have decks? Darlene Loving: All except 15 and most of those were, I am a board member and a II relatively new board member of the association. Since I've been on the board, prior to Kathryn Hedlund's wanting approval for a deck, one other homeowner last year at 1016 Pontiac received a permit and was not required to get a variance. II Now prior to my being on the board, I would say over three-fourth's of those decks that are on there were built by New Horizon at the time of this development. II Councilman Bo yt: I would ask the Attorney, does the City have any opportunity to take action against New Horizon? Roger Knutson: I'd really have to look into that. I don' I contract states. I would have to examine it in my office. e Councilman Boyt: If one of these decks was approved, I last year, as is indicated, I'd like to know if that�City yeIns building permit with us and if that inspector is with us, I'd like that personetoo get sasletter in their file indicating that they have not carried out their duties. I think ' another thing that comes through here very clearly is the inspector may have had a very good reason for not carrying out his duties and that's the fact that we are working them way too hard. They don't have time to take the serious look II that these things deserve. I would like to see this deck approved. With 141 decks approved, it's too late to stop it, as Jay indicated and I would like to see the Attorney directed to investigate the potential for the City to take II action against New Horizon because I think if we don't, we are basically saying to developers, do anything you want. My third point would be that a letter go in the file of the inspector, if they're still with us, i expect more diligence. indicating that we II Mayor Hamilton: I would second your motion without the last item on there. I don't know if we can determine that the inspector is here and I don't know that II it's appropriate because one was missed to chastise him. and 130 others have been built. I think there needs to be a lot of investigation before and I'm not sure that it's worth it. Worth the staff time to go through all the files and figure out who screwed up what and when and why and where. e II Councilman Johnson: We should chastise the City Manager and let him chastise his employees. I Mayor Hamilton: I think the City Manager has the message and they'll discuss it with the staff so these types of things don't happen in the future. ' II 18 II N. II p ity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I am alright with withdrawing that as long as everybody understands that we are accountable and that means that staff has to do their job. Councilman Geving: I would like to replace staff to the Homeowners Association advising that them one with a memorandum from and specifically of our rules and ' regulations regarding the addition of decks. When you need a variance. When you don't because I'm quite certain after talking with Darlene earlier that there is a lot of confusion over the last 8 or 9 years that this thing has carried on from one board member to another and there's been some assumptions ' made. This way the staff can give them exactly what our ordinance requirements are so they can pass that on to their homeowners and more specifically to these 15 that are still out there and are potential variance cases. I'd like to replace your item 3 with that suggestion. Mayor Hamilton: Probably within your letter, encourage them to put the full sized deck on. If anybody else puts a deck on, make it the full size rather than the half decks that do not do anything for the property. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to suggest a fourth. That we waive the fee on ' this particular permit as far as the variance, $75.00 variance fee that she paid because like you said, 141 have gone before without paying the $75.00 for the deck. It doesn't seem entirely fair to me to have her pay her $75.00 fee here. She's already gone through with her title searches and the other things to find all of her neighbors within 500 feet and notify them of this. In the quad homes, all the neighbors is a lot of neighbors within 500 feet. I think she's gone to a lot more than expense than that is. It's the least we could do. Councilman Boyt: You make a good point except that that's what a variance fee is about is the staff time to investigate. I grant you that here are ' apparently about 140 people out there that didn't pay the $75.00 but staff did put the time in to investigate and it was.. . We've kind of drawn our line in the sand and said we're now aware of it and people who go forward, are you going to relax this fee for the next 15 people who come in and apply? ' Councilman Johnson: I'd like us to review whether we have to, for those next 15, whether we should give those 15 certain specifications of carte blanche variance to say okay, if you build such and such a deck under such and such a standards, this can become almost an administrative variance. It comes before the Board and here's the standards for this variance. If you meet these. All ' staff has to do is compare against those standards. Councilman Boyt: We can't do that. Councilman Geving: No, I don't agree with that at all. I think that's why we have the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. ' Councilman Johnson: These could be guidelines to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on what we want to see for the next 15 decks so there won't be any staff time for those. So we'd be able for the next 15 also.. . ' Councilman Geving: But they do have to come before the Board. Councilman Johnson: We've wasted more than $75.00 over arguing over it. 19 City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 \INsssi Contractor for Applicant: The $75.010 went for the application for a variance. She also had to incur $250.00 and that's just getting a list of the homeowners right in that particular area. That's between the $ added to the time I've spent waiting and she's been waitin plus the $just to t$250.00,gg some kind of straight answers as to whether or not she's going tobeable to gget and a permit okay. That's where we're kind of asking that maybe this permit be II okayed free of cost to the homeowner. Mayor Hamilton: i don't know where you went to spend $250.00 that you could II have done a lot less expensive I would thing. Contractor For Applicant: We were not told of any other way other than to go down, I believe it's Carver County Abstract Company and they charge through the II nose. Barbara Dacy: Maybe what we could do is I'll bring back, I understand your motion is to approve the variance but maybe at the next meeting bring back, or II at a future meeting, bring back an option for the Council to consider to standardize looking at this request. I can appreciate your concerns to keep a IIhandle on these but to maybe address the homeowner's concerns, maybe we can call it a site plan review and not necessarily a variance that requires a public hearing because it is an unenclosed deck. We can standardize the setback and so on. It might make your job easier and easier on the homeowner. II Councilman Horn: Have we set a precedent that 10 years from now the last one comes in and everybody's forgotten about this and you have to go through and lil rehash the whole thing again. Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to add that condition to your motion that $75.00 forgiveness? You did not. at the II Councilman Boyt: Sorry. I think on the one hand, I'll add it if we right now say we're going to forego it for the next 15 people who come in here and not II charge them as any fee. I can see it as one lump but I have real problems if staff is going to put some time in, that we need to be reimbursed as a City. We don't need to have everybody subsidizing someone's request for a variance. Councilman Johnson: We made the same recommendation earlier I fact you made it, for the people before and staff put tameeintonsthatnone. in over the published.� p p Well $75.00. We We went to the newspaper and id II publishing in the newspaper. We made the same recommendation to that was slightly different circumstances. person. It Councilman Boyt: Quite a bit different circumstances. II Councilman Johnson: I don't see, these people paid $325.00 so far, more or less. Can you see if 15 more times? II Mayor Hamilton: I will then, would like to add a condition to your motion that any of the other quads in that development not be charged � 9 $75.00 variance fee. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that. II 20 II 7 II .:ity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 r � Councilman Geving: I feel very, very uncomfortable. I agree with what you just said in adding that condition but I think it's very unfair to Kathryn Hedlund who spent all the time and effort in this test case, not to waive the $75.00 permit fee. Councilman Johnson: It's for her too. ' Councilman Boyt: That's what we're doing. For everybody. Councilman Geving: Okay, but I just heard a big objection. Councilman Boyt: Only if we do it for everyone. ' Councilman Geving: Okay, if it's for everybody, then we're in favor of it. That's fine. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the front yard setback variance request for Kathryn Hedlund at 7200 Pontiac Circle with the following conditions: 1. Direct the City Attorney to investigate the potential of the City to take action against the developer, New Horizons. 2. Staff write a memo to the Cimarron Homeowners Association informing them of the City's rules and regulations regarding the addition of decks. 3. That the $75.00 variance request permit fee be waived in this case and in the 15 possible future variance requests as well. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REALIGNMENT OF NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD./PLEASANT VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION. Public Present ' Name Address ' Greg Cray John Nikolai 320 Pleasant View Road 608 Pleasant View Road Herb Kask 115 Pleasant View Road Jim Wehrle President, Near Mountain Homeowners Assn. ' Jim Meyer 6225 Ridge Road Ken Wengle Near Mountain Blvd. Mike Pflaum Lundgren Bros. Larry Brown: On 2/27/88 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility regarding the possibility of realigning Near Mountain Blvd. with Pleasant View Road. At that time the City Attorney was asked whether this intersection constitutes a liability or not and the question was posed back, can a design vehicle make it around this corner safely. Staff has analyzed this 21