Loading...
1992 04 13CHANHASSEN 80ARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING APRIL 13, 1992 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order. MEM8ERS PRESENT: Carol Watson, Willard Johnson and Richard Wing STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 2 CAR GARAGE, EXPANSION WITH SECOND FLOOR OVER ENTRY WAY, AND ADDITION OF A 80AT WINDOW LOCATED A! 3605 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, ROBERT KLICK. Al-Jarl: As you mentioned we have 3 variances attached to this application. The first one is a 4 foot sideyard variance to construct and attached 2 car garage. One thing we should point out is that Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city~ The zoning ordinance and regulations were adopted after these neighborhoods existed. The second variance request is for an expansion of the second floor over the existing entry way and will require a 2 foot variance to the sideyard setback. This addition will not bring the existing setbacks any closer to the property line but rather present an intensification of an existing variance. The third variance is for a 26 foot variance from the shoreline setback. This will be used to construct a boat window 3 foot outside the current building and to allow a similar setback from the lake for the new 2 car garage. The boat window is consistent with interior rennovation of the home that is being proposed. There is a fourth variance. The allowable hard coverage on this parcel is 4,700 square feet. The total existing hard coverage is' 5,120 square feet. The applicant is planning to reduce the hard coverage to 4,890 square feet. This would lower the amount of runoff to Lake Minnewashta and actually benefit the lake. This non-conformity is being reduced~ therefore you don't need to vote on this variance. On the fourth variance that I mentioned. We surveyed the area within 500 feet. The distance of the setback from Lake Minnewashta varied anywhere between 25 feet and 52 feet. None of the existing homes have a 75 foot setback from the lake. Therefore the requested 44 foot setback variance will allow the property to have a comparable use as the surrounding neighborhood and will allow it to blend with these pre-existing standards. There are similar findings to support the side yard setback request. Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending approval of this variance with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Johnson: Is there someone here from the applicant? Please state your Robert Klick: My name is Robert Klick and I manage this residence for Mr. Don Knight who lives in Europe~ Holland. He plans I think in coming back here eventually to retire at this home so he would like to update it a little bit more and make these improvements. Watson: Who's living in the house at the present time? Robert Klick: No one. Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 2 Watson: Nobody. That's what I thought. Robert Klick: He comes back every summer for 2 months and they spend their vacations here. He lived here in the states, lived in that home for 10 years and then he went back to Holland to live and kept on the house and they did rent it for a while and now they're eventually trying to, thinking about coming back here and living in this house. Moving back from Europe. So he planned on going with the remodeling and it Nas approved in 1990 by the Council but living in Europe, the loan didn't go through apparently is what I was told and he was going to put $300,000.00 into remodeling it. Living in Europe and getting a loan-here apparently he didn't get it so that's, but now he'd like to make a move and get started on it. Watson: Is it going to happen then? Robert Klick: If we can get the approval. If we get the variances it's going to happen. 3ohnson: Are they going to remove that existing garage? Robert Klick: I don't think he's going to move the existing garage. He'll use that for his boat. There's a boat. We had a variance with a roof, boat cover over that and I think that's what they're concerned about. That will be coming down. But then he'll use the garage for his boat. 3ohnson: Richard, you have any questions? Wing: No, but as long as this is on the record it gives me a chance to poke at small lots. This is the oldest neighborhoods, one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city and we have a lot of non-conforming homes and so I don't know why we keep making them worst. And what we're looking at here is a 2 car garage onto a home that's already not in compliance. And we're going to have a 4 car garage on a substandard lot. Whether you put boats in it or cars. I don't care what it is. We have a 4 car garage here all of a sudden on a lot that really can't have almost anything the way it is. Four variances. Ail this does is aggravate my position on small lots but that's the next meeting at 7:30 so I'll just carry that over. This just reinforces my position that this has got to stop but at any rate in due respect to you, we've already granted one next door that's no worse then this and this has already been approved so I guess this to me isn't an issue at all other than the significance of it's very existence I think needs to be dealt with. I tend to support it. Watson: Well we did already do it and that's why I asked the question, is it going to get done this time because to be honest with you, I can see doing it again. I can't see doing it a third time. I mean you know in the first place, it's not a wonderful situation. Robert Klick: We were ready to start on it. He did not know that the variances ran out and I contacted him and said I came up to get a building permit. He was going to start with the overhang in the front and l presented it upstairs to the Building Inspectors, the engineers, and they looked at the plans and they were going for it.and then I checked i-n on it and found out that the variances were out. Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 3 Al-Jarl: Expired. Robert Klick: They said you'd have to Yeapply for the variances. Watson: Okay, what period of time does this project have to be completed? Even if they start, when do we have to? Al-Jarl: As long as there is work being done. Watson: It can go on forever? Al-Jarl: Well, substantial work. Watson: That's a charming thought. 3ohnson: You wouldn't want to leave it just hanging. Have it partially done and just abandon it. Watson: Yeah. If there was concern last time, I can't see why the concerns just changed. He is in fact still living in Holland. The house is in fact empty. Robert Klick: 10 months out of the' year it's empty. He comes back periodically. He'll be back in May. Watson: But the financing is in place this time? Robert Klick: Pardon? Watson: The financing of this variance is in place? Robert Klick: Yes. In fact once we get the okay on the 'variances, we're going to give the, try to get the okays and present the plans to the engineers and get our building permits-. Watson: Okay. And this lean to that's next to the garage is coming down? Robert Klick: That will be coming down. Watson: I want that in the Minutes. 3ohnson: Yeah. I'd like it in the motion as part of the condition. Watson: That's got to be a condition. That's got to come down before they build. Al-Jarl: Alright. Watson: And I agree with you, but I am really pleased that someone else can do the small lot speech. How many years have I been doing this? Since back in '70 sometime I've done the small lot speech. Wing: I think after Red Cedar Point we've got to start watching this intensification. I don't think it's doing us, it's already crowded like Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 4 Carver Beach and to start allowing these. These houses were bought fully aware of, I don't mean to keep you standing because is. Robert Klick: No, that's fine. I'm interested in what you're saying. Wing: These lots, and Hr. Knight is certainly one of them, because he owned most of that land out there to begin with or was a major resident out there, but those houses were bought and built knowing those lots were small. Knowing the restrictions and like the Andersons next door. They buy the house knowing the restrictions. Ail of a sudden they get a little more money, another kid and suddenly they need all these rules changes. Well, don't buy the house then. So we're giving in and intensifying things so bad that then somebody comes in with a deck like this add I say, let's not even bring them up. These are irrelevent to what we're doing to these lots and intensifying, crowding these neighborhoods. I guess variances are a gift and that's fine, I like to be supportive of the community but even tonight I think we're, I don't understand why this one's okay but then that deck in the back yard's not. Here's an approval and a denial and this one is almost threatening to me only because of the intense, Sharmin wants to say something to me. Watson: But in a way we're talking apples and oranges. Wing: True, and I admit that. I admit that. Al-Jarl: The way we justify it is, we look at the conditions that would regulate a variance and they really meet all the requirements for approval. Watson: Especially that one that we dragged in over Willard's and roy's bodies about the 500 feet. And I still would vote 5 minutes from now to dump that. I don't think it should be relevant. 3ohnson: Which one was that now? Watson.' Where they look around 500 feet and if they can find some bad stuff, we can do more bad stuff and I don't like that at all. A1-3aff: But that's what we go by. I mean that's how we. Watson: Well, we didn't want it' but the Council approved the new ordinance with that in it. Wing: So there Carol. Watson: Okay, Z guess we've done enough editorializing on your behalf. Al-Jarl: May I add one more thing? I found under variances, you asked how much work needs to be done? The exact wording is, a variance shall become void within 1 year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner or in reliance thereon. Whatever that meads. Watson: Whatever substantial means. Somewhere in the book do we have definition of substantial? I love these words. I didn't think so. Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 5 Johnson: I would have liked to seen this garage, the other garage come down which Dick had mentioned before. Instead of a 4 car garage. Wing: That would have really cleaned up that area in the neighborhood and opened up the lake. It would have kept everything on one side. Watson: Yeah, and it would have, at least be some trade offs and where we're giving, I mean it doesn't mean that everything goes. There would have been some trade off there in that we would have at least opened up that one area. Wing: Is this house and lot justify a 4 car garage or 2 car garage and a 2 boat garage? Watson: Because now would we allow them to build a boat house? 3ohnson: No, you're not allowed. Al-Jarl: That's what they built in the first place. Watson: That's what that garage is, is a boat house? Al-Jarl: The first variance. Robert Klick: No. The first variance, that garage was there. They put the lean to on without a permit and it was caught by the inspectors so we came before the Board and the Board denied it and went to the Council and the Council approved it if I remember right. Watson: That's right. Wing: We're giving the house an at'tached 2 car garage. Al-Jarl: Correct. Wing: We're allowing another major structure to stand and I'm sure the garage had a variance to begin with. The fact that it's there I would imagine. Watson: It probably came before the process. We have no control over that at this point any way do we? Al-Jarl: You mean removing? I can't see why you can't remove it. I mean that could be a condition of approval. I will check with the City Attor ney. Wing: It's a fairly sound structure as I saw it. Watson: Yeah, it's not dilapidated or anything. 3ohnson: I would like to see them go. Wing: You spoke didn't you? Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 6 $ohnson: I've spoken pretty much. Wing: I'd move staff recommendation for the variance, 2 car garage, 3605 Red Cedar Point. Watson: I'll second. Johnson: With the conditions? Wing: With Carol's added as a friendly amendment to that. 3ohnson: Anymore discussion? Did you second it Carol or not? Watson: Yeah I did. Wing: With the removal of the lean to. Watson: Yeah, with the removal of the lean to before one piece of wood's put on. Or one shovel full of dirt moved. 3ohnson: Anymore discussion? Ning moved, Natson seconded to approve Variance Request #88-11 for a 4 foot (east) side yard variance for the construction of a 2 car garage; a 2 foot (west) side yard variance for entrance intensification and second floor bedroom expansion; and a 26 foot variance to the 75 foot shoreland setback as shown on the site plan dated September 13, 1990 and the following conditions: 1. Type III erosion control be maintained during the construction season along Lake Minnewashta. 2. No additional construction be permitted' without a variance application. 3. The building inspection department shall confirm that the new construction complies with building codes in light of limited building setbacks to adjoining property. 4. If the hedges at the east side of home are removed due to construction, they shall be replaced by plantings acceptable to city staff and the adjoining property owner to buffer the adjoining parcel. 5. The applicant shall remove the lean to before one shovel of dirt has been removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 3ohnson: As long as the lean to comes down. Watson: Nell it will help but. Al-Jaff: Well this will definitely reduce the hard surface coverage. Board of Adjustments and AppeaIs April &3, 1992 - Page ? Watson: Yeah, but it won't reduce the congestion. Everywhere you look, I mean there's hardly a piece of ground big enough to mow. 3ohnson: Get the lean to off. See that lean to was put on without a permit and then the Board got it and the Board denied it and the Council down the road .... before I forget Sharmin. That one we granted, oh boy I don't have my map either. That one where we had to redo the road. It's no cul-de-sac, it's a I. There's nothing happening down there. Now how long ago was that? Al-Jaff: it. It hasn't been a year yet. It's a year from the date we record Watson: Is there a problem with that? Al-Jarl: No. They're waiting until spring. So now it's spring so anytime nOW · 3ohnson: I hope the city keeps an eye on that one. I mean if it goes over the time. Al-Jarl: They did, according to the ordinance, they have done substantial work. I mean if you count the cul-de-sac. 3ohnson: Yeah. I just figured that was part of, should have been, that was some past stuff they never did get done. Can we move ahead and just approve the Minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ning moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Chanhassen Board of Adjustment and Appeals Minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 11 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING DECK LOCATED AT 1840 PHEASANT- DRIVE. DAVE SCHISSEL. Al-Jarl: This is an after the fact variance. The applicants built a deck that has dimensions of 24 x 20 feet. It requires an 11 foot rear yard setback variance. The zoning ordinance requires all decks to maintain a distance of 25 feet from the rear property line. The subject deck is set back 14 feet from the rear property line. We surveyed the area within 500 feet. Ail the structures meet the required setbacks. The difficulty is self created. Had the applicant followed procedure and applied for a building permit before building the deck, we had pointed out where the buildable area is. We believe that there are other alternatives for this deck to be built and maintain the required setbacks. We are recommending denial of this proposal. Thank you. One thing I would like to point out is approximately 2 years ago you reviewed an extremely similar proposal. Watson: I remember. In this neighborhOod and the gentleman bought land in order to use this deck. Johnson: Is the applicant here wish to talk? Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 8 David Schissel." My name is David Schissel. Applying for the variance. There's some things I guess I want to point out tonight. First of all, l talked to I guess 2 of you and Sharmin and I have been working on this together. I didn't get a permit because I didn't think I needed one because the house was fairly new. I'm negligent there. That issue is done I guess. There's nothing I can do to change that. Steven...one of the city inspectors...informed me I had to have a permit and at that point I guess I went down and applied for the permit... Also I'd like to add that when I built the thing, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong. I thought you could be 10 feet from the rear and the sides. I didn't know there was... I checked with both of my neighbors before I built the deck. One of them...I brought a note from here explaining the fact of how she feels about the whole thing. Before I built the deck I checked with these people and planned the deck and nobody had any problem with the think. I guess I don't know, for whatever this is worth. Watson: Yeah, it will be made part of the record. David Schissel: Obviously you can read from it. She has no objections. She'd like to see it stay the way it is. I know you've all looked at the deck. I disagree that it's a self-created hardship. Yeah I did build the deck without the permit and it is a big deck but .... 33 acres. It's a nice sized piece of property. It's long and skinny. And being on a hill coming down from the back property line to the road, we had set the house back into the hill. And in doing so, the rear of the house is only 30 feet from the, at it's minimum from the rear property... And at that time the city in fact never pointed out to me or at least made it aware to me that hey, you're not going to be able to build much of a deck out this door... Nothing was ever said and as I understand policies of Chanhassen have since changed making it, the homeowner to sign off so they understand the setbacks. I've got trees, full grown trees growing on the side of the house. I can't build a deck into that... I'm not going to cut down trees. If the deck has got to go, I 'm not going to have a deck. I 'm just not going to build it. I'm not going to have a 5 foot deck out that door going around the side of the house. None of the neighbors, I've talked to the one even across the street. Now I know they don't have to look at it but I talked to her. Nobody has a problem. I know I'm violating the ordinance. I guess if anybody had a problem with it in the first place, especially the two people that look at the deck, I wouldn't even apply for the variance. But that's why I'm applying for the variance. If the deck can stay, remain the way it is right now. It's a ground level deck. It fits in. It blends in. I think very well and given that fact of...I don't know what else to say. Johnson: Anyone have any questions first? ~4atson: You know, I really don't have any questions. It's an attractive deck. I mean it never was an issue of whether it looks nice. It looks fine. It is very large. 20 x 24 is one big deck. David Schissel: Yeah, but it's not 20 x 24. It's 14 feet out by 24. The other 20 is the part that wraps around the side of the house. Board of AdJustments and Appeals April 13, i992 - Page 9 Watson: Around that side of the house where that piece goes, it's about 60 feet? Where are the trees over here? I looked at this thing from every angle. Where are the trees that are ove~ here? David Schissel: The deck is going into them. The trees are going into the deck right now. Wing: Like they're built right into them. Watson: Yeah, that's what I thought. I couldn't remember if they were up here further. David Schissel: No, they're down in this corner and that's the problem. You can't build down in this corner. I think something here is a little out of proportion. First the...rear of his house. He couldn't have 'a deck so I think on this, as far as the survey goes, this portion is a little out of proportion. Over here...his house can't be that close. Wing: This looks good to me. This is what I saw. I don't see anything that close. What's your concern? David Schissel: Nothing. I'm just saying, just so you know, that house that they sketched on here, is that right? Wing: Oh yeah. That's what I saw when I was out there. David $chissel: Can the back of his house be that close? To the property line? Al-Jarl: The dotted line is an easement. Wing: This is the point we looked at and I agree. It's irrelevant. David Schissel: Yeah it is. It really is. The point is Carol, the trees are here. There's one growing out here. When the house was built, there were 3 of these trees exactly the same height growing right here that were cut down. I don't care, I'm not going to cut anymore trees down. Absolutely not. Watson: I can understand that. I live on a little house in the prairie. David Schissel: You're correct saying 24 x 20 but just so you know, this is 14 feet and it's 20 back this way. I've got a 6 year old. That's the place they play. That's the only flat land I have on this property. Really. Kirk Lee: If I could add something that...we just recently bought our house, my wife and I 9 months ago and we recently had a little baby boy and he's now engaged to be married and his fiancee has a child and I just know that during last summer with my wife and I, it was a wonderful place to meet, to gather. And like he said before, it looks very nice from where our view is and quite honestly, all of my house, the whole back of it looks right in his house. I also find that the use of the trees, he cannot build a deck outside of it because he's just have to take all of those pine trees Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, ~992 - Page 10 out of there and then that would leave him with no trees whatsoever. I don't know. You have rules and what have you but I think you have a situation where both of his neighbors who do view the deck, accepting it and thinking that it's visually pleasant to look at and it's also a very nice place to meet. I hope that he does not have to take it down. 3ohnson: Could you state your name for the record please. Kirk Lee: Oh my name is Kirk Lee and I'm his neighbor to the west at 3601 Steller Circle. Watson: We've done this. We told the gentleman his deck had to come down. Johnson: I have no problem with the deck but it's getting to the same thing that Richard's going to be bringing up tonight. Small lots. Wing: Well the one deck, he took the city on. He kne~ he was not in compliance. He knew that he was in error. He had stop orders, or at least the one that I'm thinking of, and he continued on and said, who cares and he got caught in the process and you're right, he had to pull it back. I didn't have any sympathy on that one. Watson: Well the one guy bought land to make his deck. Wing: Yeah, okay I see. David Schissel: I'm sorry but we looked into that. I can't buy land. I mean Ester's house, her's was the original farmhouse... Watson: Oh yeah. That's the $teller from $teller Circle. Wing: Well I looked at this and I think staff was proper to deny it. I think it was their only option. I think this is excessive. I think it was an honest mistake. It's done. I'm disappointed that, you know every time we get this, they're never subtle. They're always massive. They're always over kill. It's always twice as much as they needed and it makes it questionable. But there is no back yard and what I see here is that he more or less took a non-existing back yard and artificalty created one. almost, when I walked around the house initially thought it was part of the structure. It simply, there's such a terrible yard, I thought it was just part of the house when I first went in there. Almost a foundation. And Paul just got done commenting on something I read for tonight's Council meeting that people, that children tend to play in the back yard, not the front. There is no front yard. There's no yard here at all and so this deck really becomes his playground in the backyard for the child or children, whatever the case is. I also found that it blended well. It's out of view, the trees completely obscure it from the street. It certainly could be cut back. We could cut back, it would be nice if it wasn't such a big deck. We could easily cut it back 5 feet easily and with almost no hardship but we still have a variance required. I think the city policy is clarifying these situations and I guess after some of the variances, that variance we gave tonight with that monster garage going out there and some of the other stuff we've done I just, I'm comfortable with this. I just Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, ~992 - Page 11 hope these things with staff's eye on them in the future, come to a halt. So I guess I tend to vote in support of it. Watson: I can't. Because we've made other people comply. We've forced' them to comply and it has cost them dearly too in fact comply with us and they have. And this neighborhood seems to have, what shall we say, a problem with constructing decks without getting permits. I mean this isn't the first one. It isn't the second one. It's like the third or fourth one where a deck has just appeared magically before our eyes and I think that this will set a precedent and we will have them going up, whether they have a permit or not. Whether they're within the zoning ordinance or not and I don't think that somewhere along the line we have to tell people that you bought this lot or you put this house on this lot. You now live with this piece of property. Whatever it's size. Whatever it's configuration. Whatever it's slope. Whatever it's tree structure. You've made a decision and when you made that decision, you took on all the little things you don't like along with that decision and I think the buck stops here. ._ Wing: I agree. Mr. Knight did it 30 years ago. I mean 30 years ago he knew what he had and he's back here not only wanting.a 2 car garage, a 4 car garage and an addition to a house. Watson: But Richard, we're talking apples and oranges here. That's not the same thing. We're not talking about the same thing. Wing: No, the definition of variance. Again, I don't disagree with your position. I happen to think you're right. I just think this is a massive... Watson: I can't go back 30 years and make Mr. Knight's house cut it. But something that's happened in this recent a time as this development and we've already had endless problems with decks appearing that aren't conforming. Wing: I don't see him pushing anybody here at all and it is, as I said, it is so well hidden. It's really his back yard on a lot that doesn't have a yard at all. Watson: But nowhere in the variance ordinance does it say. Wing: I agree. It shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't have happened. Watson: Whether it is or isn't attractive, whether it does or doesn't make something out of a lot. I mean somewhere along the line Mr. Schissel made a decision to own this house on this lot. Slope and all and when' he made _ that choice, he must have looked at it and saw there was no flat land. So I mean, it wasn't a surprise. David Schissel: I agree but what about Mr. Wing's statement in regards to children playing in back yards...I think that's very important in a family neighborhood like where we live with all the young children. Watson: I do too but at some point in time you must have thought of that when you bought the land. Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 12 David Schissel: I agree with you but. I totally agree with-you and I am in total agreement with ordinances and rules. That they protect us all. /here's no question about it. What nobody said to me was the setback and yeah, I didn't come in and get a permit and I want to say, I wasn't trying to fool anybody. They were building a house right across the road. Watson: It's much too big. I believe you. David Schissel: ...corner. They were building that house. I mean if I was trying to fool somebody, I mean Steve must have driven by there every day. I was not trying to fool anybody. Watson: I don't for one minute think you were. I don't think that necessarily any of the people. David Schissel: So 3ust...at this lot. Yeah, I looked at the lot and said hey, this lot is sitting here empty. I've lived in the area for 4 years. I said I can do something with this lot. It was Ester's last lot that she sold but did the City come to me and say hey look, and I think this is the City's responsibility. This I will put back on the city and say look, where you put this house, when I gave them the survey, you might have problems with a deck. AYe you thinking about that? No, I wasn't. I didn't think about that. I didn't think it would be an issue. Watson: There's another thing for your small lot. We don't think about these things but all of a sudden we want what isn't there. David Schissel: Initially I had the deck on the plans when I sent them to the city. Then I pulled it. Took it off entirely because I couldn't afford it. So I knew the deck would come a year later. Watson: And that's usually the case too. Johnson: It's been the case. I agree with you, you don't have the land but this goes back to what Carol has said too. These small lots, you put the house on them and then they'want to expand a year later and we've got problems. Wing: Carol, this deck is fairly massive and if there was 5 feet pulled off, it would kind of be less massive. It still would not comply and to comply would be no deck at all. I think David's right. To pull back to a level of, to the proper setbacks accomplishes nothing for him. The City. The house. It's kind of like allowing Andersons and Knights to suddenly add a 2 car garage onto these nightmare homes out here with no lots at all. I mean what's the point of it except it puts the house up to compliance. And this deck sort of, I don't know, I can't argue with you because you're clearly, clearly right. Just on the flexibility I'm seeing and some of the over ruling. I don't think because it's done. Because of the money involved. Because he has stopped work on it when these issues came up, I think he's tried to comply. It's-an obvious question of here it is. I'd like to just leave it. Yes I made a mistake and I guess I'm not Going to ask that he take it out but I agree with you and I don't know where to draw the line. It's getting confusing to me. · Board ot= AdJustments and AppeaIs Apr il 13, 1992 - Page ~3 Watson: That we're going to have an opportunity to figure just that very question out. Where are we going to draw the line? I've got news for you. This is the last one you're going to see in that neighborhood because those are big houses on not very big Iots and it's going to come up and come up and come up whether it's the garage they didn't build or the 3 season porch they didn't put up when they buiIt and they want now. Johnson: Or the third garage they went and had. Watson: Yeah you know, we're going to have an opportunity to draw the line. Johnson: Because these houses run, lot line to lot line. Watson: Most of them don't have a great, they're big homes. They're big, lovely homes but they didn't think about the land. David Schissel: Is it possible to judge an individual piece of property as opposed to setting a standard and enduring to that? Wing: We've got the standard. Watson: The standard exists, yeah. Wing: And then we go with the individual cases. Watson: This is what this is. David Schissel: That's what I mean, yeah. In other words that's what, yeah obviously I'm in support of this so that's why I'd like to take'a little more on the individual needs as opposed to. 3ohnson: And it isn't a hardship because he has use of the lot. Wing: Is this a deck though? Is this a subtle deck? Is this a reasonable structure if we're going to look at the rules? Or is this 3ust the biggest you could put on that lot without 3ust going into your yard. I mean this is a big structure. Ibis isn't a subtle structure so we may not be arguing. Watson: That's what he said that he hadn't tried to hide it. It's big. I mean you know there's no question that. David Schissel: It blends in. When I built that, I mean they were building right across the street. I wasn't trying to hide it. And my house, I think my house is very nice. Sits on the lot very nicely. It's on a... Watson: Absolutely. David Schissel: I did not build one of these massive houses. It doesn't fit. I mean as I got into this lot, yeah after I bought the lot. After signed my name, I started to figure out what kind of house I would build. Board ol= Adjustments and AppeaIs Aprii 13, 1992 - Page 14 Z had to change from a front loading garage to a rear loading garage... driveway. I had second thoughts and... Watson: You're on Willard. 3ohnson: I go along. I understand where he's coming from. I can't go along with this variance because here's a case where we've got the same problem again. We've got, it boils down to this small lot. We've got a house that covers the whole lot. I realize he had to design the house to fit the lot. We've been fighting these lots for years saying hey, let's get them bigger. My rule of thumb is always been squawking for years that it's fine for a young couple that just don't have any children. When they have children, they start getting 2 or 3 cars. When they've got 3 teenagers about say 16 and they each want a car, where do you put them on these small lots. That's been my soapbox for years. Wing: Require to cutback to the 25 foot setback? Watson: I make the motion to deny the ii foot rear yard variance for the existing deck, 1840 Pheasant Drive. I believe I've said enough. Johnson: I'll second that motion. Any more discussion? David Schissel: What's the next step? Watson: Hold on one second. Johnson: Any more discussion on this? Watson moved, 3ohnson seconded to deny the il foot rear yard variance for an existing deck at 1840 Pheasant Drive. All voted in favor of denial except Wing who opposed the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 2 to 1. Johnson: Now you have to appeal. 5 days Sharmin? Al-Jarl: He can appeal it to the Council. Their next meeting is 2 weeks from today. Roger Knutson: Split votes go automatically to the Council. David Schissel: Obviously I'm going to appeal. Johnson: You won't have to do it. It's been a split vote. It will automatically go to Council. David Schissel: Alright, will I get information on that? Watson: They'll be notifying you so you know it's on the agenda. Al-Jaff: I'll be sending you a letter. Watson: Sharmin, one more quick question before we adjourn. I want to see whatever regulations we have on corner lot. Structures on corner lots for Board o¢ Adjustments and Appeals April 13, 1992 - Page 15 the next time we meet. Ne don't have time to hash through it now but that's some big questions on that subject too. So if you'd bring anything in the ordinance that addresses directly with corner lots. Natson moved, Ning seconded to close the public hearings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearings were closed. Watson moved, 3ohnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim