2 Variance 1301 Hesse Farm RoadCITY OF
BOA DATE: 5/20/96
CC DATE:
CASE #: g96-3 VAR
By: Rask:v
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Variance to the fence requirements for in-ground swimming pools.
I--
Z
<l:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
1301 Hesse Farm Road
Lot 20, Block 1, Hesse Farm
Keith Carlson
1301 Hesse Farm Road
Chanhassen, MN 55318
881-6970
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
RR, Rural Residential
3.98 Acres
N/A
N- RR, Rural Residential
S - RR, Rural Residential
E - RR, Rural Residential
W- RR, Rural Residential
Not available to the site
The site contains a single family home. The majority of the yard is
established lawn with a few sparsely planted trees.
Large Lot Residential
Carlson Variance
May 20, 1996
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-1021 of the Chanhassen City Code states that, "All in-ground swimming pools shall be
protected by a fence not less than five (5) feet in height. All gates shall have a self-closing and self-
latching latch installed on the pool side of the fence. All fences shall be non-climbable and shall
have intermediate rails or ornamental pattern such that a sphere four (4) inches in diameter cannot
pass through. Subsection (a) does not apply to pools which are located on property which are
completely enclosed by perimeter fence five (5) feet in height.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a variance from the ordinance requiring fences around in-ground pools.
In lieu of constructing a fence, the applicant is proposing the use of a pool cover to address safety
issues. The make and quality of the proposed pool cover is such that it provides a high level of
safety if used properly. In addition, the applicant believes that because of the low density and large
lots of the Hesse Farm subdivision that relatively few people will be in close proximity to the pool.
In 1989, the City Zoning Ordinance was changed to require that all in-ground pools be protected by
a fence. Prior to 1989, the City Code required fencing for swimming pools but allowed this
requirement to be deleted if it was determined that the pool was not easily accessible by the public.
In November of 1990, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals granted a variance request to delete
the pool fence requirement on property located between Galpin Blvd. and Highway 41. The pool
was to be constructed on a 75 acre parcel which contained a single family home. The Board
granted the variance based on the following findings:
1. We find there to be no danger to the public from this request.
e
This site is uniquely different from normal or typical residential development in the city of
Chanhassen due to its extraordinarily large size, location of the home and site topography
which serves to make it difficult to access.
3. The site is fenced sufficiently to put trespassers on notice that they are intruding onto private
property.
4. The ordinance is not designed to accommodate unique situations such as this.
Staff recommended in favor of this variance based on the unique circumstances associated with the
property. The City's Building Official expressed concern over the variance indicating that a fence
Carlson Variance
May 20, 1996
Page 3
around the pool would provide an appropriate safety measure to both the occupants of the site and
general public.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends denial of the variance appeal as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship or
a unique circumstance which would warrant the granting of a variance. An unfenced pool may be a
hazard not only for the occupants of the home, but a hazard to adjoining parcels where access is
relatively easy. The close proximity of the pool to Bluff Creek Drive, a collector road, and Hesse
Farm Road provides easy and direct access to the pool location.
The fence along with the self-closing and self-latching gate requirement of the City Code serves as
a strong deterrent to both young children and unauthorized users. A pool cover may be forgotten,
improperly dosed, or intentionally lef~ open contributing to the likelihood of an accident. Whereas,
no safety measure is foolproof, the fence requirement with a self-closing and latching gate appears
to be a reasonable requirement that provides an adequate level of safety.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
Re
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The applicant has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home. Staff
is unaware of any other pools built atter 1989 which do not have a fence around it with the
exception of the one variance as described above.
be
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: Other properties in this same zoning classification have similar hardships when
installing a pool. Properties in this zoning classification, RR, are generally in the 2.5 to 5
acre range and contain a concentration of single family homes.
Carlson Variance
May 20, 1996
Page 4
C.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The variance does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase the value of
the property, but rather improve the appearance of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged difficulty appears to be self-created as a pool cover is not a suitable
alternative to the fence requirements of the zoning ordinance.
e.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare as a pool
cover does not provide the same level of safety as the fence requirement provided in the
zoning ordinance.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substanfally diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, but may endanger public safety if the pool cover is not used or is used improperly.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the variance based on the
finding presented in the staff report. More specifically, the Board finds the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship or unique circumstance that would warrant the
granting of a variance.
2. The property is similar to other properties in the RR zoning district which contain a
concentration of single family homes located near public roadways.
3. The property does not contain a perimeter fence or any other features which would serve as a
deterrent to trespassers, unauthorized users, or small children.
Carlson Variance
May 20, 1996
Page 5
4. The pool cover does not provide the same level of safety as a fence with a self-closing and
latching gate.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated May 13, 1996
2. Survey of property showing location of proposed pool
3. Letter stating reasons for the request
4. Literature on pool covers
5. Application for variance
CITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Rask, Planner I
FROM:
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official In
DATE: May 13, 1996
SUBJECT: 96-3 VAR (1301 Hesse Farm Rd., Keith Carlson)
I was asked to review the variance proposal plan for above referenced project.
Back~,round:
A certificate of occupancy was issued for the
condition permits have subsequently been '
has been constructed without a permit. The
20,
dwelling on 2/23/94. Deck and water
A site visit revealed that an additional deck
1, The Hesse Farm) is about 4.25 acres.
Analysis:
Chanhassen City Code Section 20-101: amended in 1989
decide if swimming pool fence ents could be waived.
because we feel strongly that swi] ag pool fences should be
language giving staffthe ability to
ts amendment was proposed by staff
r.
Although a fence is
advantages over a
1. S
that unauthorized access will be
.
latchin
Fence offer
closed, unauthorized users
deaths that may occur during any
use.
it is a strong deterrent that has
deterrent - they required
and self-
or improperly
contributing to any accidents or
Inspections Division staff has never supported ing pool fence variance, but one (90-6) was
supported by Planning Department staff and subsequently granted. The staff report states in the summary
on page five that the recommendation for approval is not based oflhard criteria findings contained in the
John Rask
May 13, 1996
Page 2
ordinance." The reasons for recommending approval in case #90-6 are not applicable in this situation
because:
· There currently is no fence of any kind around the property.
· The pool will be visible from a number of other adjacent properties, and is within 145 feet
of BluffCreek Drive.
Recommendation:
Public Safety staffrecommends the variance be denied.
g:L~afetyLsak~memos\plan~kcarsn ! .doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
ADDRESS: I~)'0~ [-~.~
~LEPHONE (Day time)
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Intedm Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
. ~/Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review* X
Subdivision*
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost**
($50 CUPISPRIVACIVA~AP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ ~ 5.00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
~ I.W~~full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/," X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION ~'~01
LEGAL DESCRIPTION [.O{' o~C) '~1~ 1 -i~ '~'~'$.~.~ F--~.r~,
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
YES ~"NO
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A wdtten
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application, j
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
~equirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature'Sf Fee O~ne~
Application Received on (~ "~- ~ (o Fee Paid ~ ? ~'°~
Date
Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Subject to eane. fl~lll, q ofrocord
0 I~uotna eel or found Lrnfl pllm
~ontl~on tB
~ OenQtee net wood hub nnd tack
a house as staked thereon,
That I em I dul~ Reglltered LGnd g,~vnvm- ,,~4-- *' ............
I imr. by corti~ that title Ls a true and corroot reproHntatlon of fl surve~ oK tho I~oundtrJo9 of