1992 09 14CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1992
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Richard Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; and Sharmin Al-Jarl,
Planner II
A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE
SEASON PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED
AT 6490 WHITE DOVE DRIVE, HARLAN LEOPOLD.
Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report~
Harlan Leopold: Harlan Leopold, 6490 White Dove Drive, and.
Linda Leopold: Linda Leopold.
Harlan Leopold: I'd like to first of all thank Sharmin for giving us the
information. It was very helpful to us and we also talked to some
building inspectors and people in the building permit area. That was
also helpful to us. I would just like to read some notes that I've taken
and then I'll remain for questions if necessary~ In looking at the
reasons for recommendations for denial of our request, one has to look at
the system which allowed this to happen in the first place. There are
two systems in place supposedly to take care of situations like this.
However, both appear to be woefully inadequate. First, to build a house
in Chanhassen one has to submit building plans, pay a substantial permit
fee and follow local and State codes. Our building plans indicated that
a screened porch would be located on the east side of our house at a
future date. Sliding glass doors for access were installed at the time
the house was built. Would it not have been easier for the building
inspector to indicate to us that we could not build this plan since our
side'yard has a 30 foot setback because we are a corner lot. Yes, I
suppose the builder should have alerted us. However, he did not. The
builder, Victoria Builders, is now out of business and has been sued by a
number of subcontractors and homeowners for failure to deliver as
promised. A recommendation to consider in the future would be to have
the homeowner sign the certificate of swrvey which indicates exactly
where you can build on the property. Then it would be less necessary for
an after the fact variance system and/or process to even exist. The
first time I saw it was when it was presented to me by Sharmin that this
was the area that we could build on, and that was a surprise. Secondly,
let's take a look at the present variance system. It was our
understanding that this system was designed to take care of oversights,
if they do not interfere with traffic, neighbors or increase income
potential for land, etc. and there are other things. The information the
staff sent us to support their case for not granting a variance discusses
rear variances. Neither of the cases mentions a corner lot which have
two front setback requirements. We followed the guidelines with the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14-, 1992 - Page 2
information available to us set forth in applying for the original
building permit. We indicated our intention for a future screen porch on
the original plans submitted. It seems to us that considering the amount
of money a homeowner's required to pay for a building permit, that there
should be more accountability for the city, the builder and of course the
homeowner. If a variance is truly one of deviation, then this
application will be allowed. Substantial additional cost would be
required to alter the opening we already created at the time the house
was built. I'll remain for any comments or Linda, do you have something?
Linda Leopold: Yeah. She has pictures. Do you have those with you?
:rohnson: They're right here.
Linda Leopold: Oh. We have pictures showing that there already are
sliding glass doors there with a big drop. The other thing would be, she
mentioned putting it further to the back of the yard which would make I
think kind of like a corridor or something that would become kind of a 6
foot walkway. I think we can go out 6 feet and it would be kind of a
walkway to a screened porch which would add substantially to the cost..
And I think it would be much less attractive to have this piece come out
and then go into the back.
Harlan Leopold: And one additional thing I might mention is that we
asked for architects or people that build decks and I was given the name
of Sawhorse and we contacted them. They came out and also indicated
there would be substantial cost to change it now. So we did go that far
and take the recommendation from the building inspector to contact
Sawhorse.
Linda Leopold: Also, the pictures do show I think that we've done quite
a bit of landscaping. It originally was without any trees or bushes
whatsoever, except along the very back. And the trees are planted around
that area so that eventually it would hide the screen porch. G-ire
privacy to us and hide it from the street.
Wing: We've seen a lot of these. We've had a lot of requests and some
were approved and some haven't but they've been toned down. The ones
that I've kind of taken a negative side towards are the big projects.
We've got the City rules. We've got our setbacks. They exist. They're
known. You can't get around them. It's buyers beware. When you want to
come down to push and shove, it comes back to you. It's your problem.
pure and simple. The system has got it's flaws. The history is there.
We know that. Particularly in your neighborhood. We were just
discussing it. It's one of our biggest problem areas. The other fact,
you've got a house there and you've got some sliding doors and they have
to go someplace. I mean obviously you're entitled to something in my
mind so I have no problem letting you have something. I don't have any
trouble putting something on any side. As I walked it today and stood
and looked at it, where I've turned to other and have not voted for these
in the past is when they come in and it's a major project. If we were
talking about a deck and a variance or a few feet, it wouldn't bother me
but we're talking about a 16 foot three season porch.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 3
Linda Leopold: No. Screened.
Wing: Screened? I think the Nord three season.
Harlan Leopold: Z noticed that in there and that's not correct.
Wing: And so I start to withdraw because now when such a major
attachment to the house that the incringement almost can't be justified.
And some of your neighbors just to the north had to cut their decks back.
I don't think they bother anybody but the Council voted to cut them back
and ~Je've had several houses that have been voted no so my position is,
you've got the house with the door that deserves something. What I'm
having trouble with is' the 16 foot something. And we just granted a
screened porch, or a screened porch was granted to a home just a little
while ago, or several years ago and it came back and now they demand that
they put a big structure on. We really got caught on it bad and I guess
I regret the variance in the first place.
Harlan Leopold: Could I clarify one item? I hate to interrupt but you
said 16 feet. It's not 16, it's only 10 because there's 6 feet already
that we can utilize.
Wing: Okay, I understand. The structure, the 16 foot structure.
Harlan Leopold: Right, okay.
Wing: Had you come in here, again. I think you deserve something for
those doors. I think it's the city's mistake. Wherever this occurred.
I'm not debating that. What I'm uncomfortable with, and I'm going to
have trouble supporting is the 16 foot structure. If this had been a 10
x 10 porch or even 12 x 12 porch, it would have been irrelevant to me but
16 x 16, I've got a 12 x 12 and it's enormous and it's a real structure
and the one that we just granted I think was 10 x 10. The 16 foot, even
though...cutting in, I have trouble with the size and I guess what I
would prefer is to have this come in as the same request but maybe a
little more conservative in nature. I guess if I was to approve this, I
would limit it to a 12 foot structure.
Watson: Yeah. 12 feet is what I looked at. I thought of when I saw it.
Wing: Then I don't care what you do. You can build anything you want
to. It's your house and the door is there. I think you have a right to
do what you want. So my recommendation is that this be approved with a
limit of 12 feet.
Harlan Leopold: So, if I can understand this correctly, does that mean
12 feet you know. 12 by?
Wing: 12 x 12. Out from the house or into, the variance we'll grant you
would be based on a 12 foot structure in length and whatever width that
you build, it's your house.
Johnson: I get trouble with the side, 30 foot. I'm on the 30 foot kick.
I guess I'd almost be out in the street because I don't know what this
city's going to do 5 years from now. I expect to see sidewalks up in
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14~ 1992 - Page 4
that neighborhood up in that neighborhood someday in the future. I guess
I can look off into the future because I've seen it happen to often in
this city. It ain't going to happen tomorrow. I've got a feeling that
someday the residents are going to scream for sidewalks up in that
neighborhood. There's a number of people that walk there. I walk there
myself and I get a feeling someday we're going to put a sidewalk and if
they put a sidewalk, we're going to be right up next to the porch.
Watson: There's quite a distance.
Harlan Leopold: Actually there's 40 feet.
Johnson: I know there's quite a distance but I just feel that, just like
where I live, my street was fine until the city put the sewer and water
through and my trees wound up in the street. I guess I've got a feeling
that could happen anyplace in the city and I've got a problem with, I'd
like to hold it 30 feet from the street. Being it's a corner lot.
Harlan Leopold: It's actually more than 30 from the street though
actually.
Johnson: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I'm well aware because
I know where the property is.
Wing: That only gives them a total of 6 feet to work with then. If we
want the 30 feet there. There's 6 feet that's useable then right?
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Watson: What about 6 feet? I mean just for discussion purposes right
now. If it were 12 feet, 6 is legally useable by a lot size. 8ut an
additional 6 feet.
Johnson: So it'd be asking for a 6 foot variance.
Watson: It'd be a 6 foot variance actually. And would still give them
the option of having something useable there. I hadn't even thought of
that but you're right. Suddenly a screened porch...
Wing: I tried to picture a 16 foot structure. It suddenly really came
out into the street and the last one on a corner lot we turned down with
the same size. We just said nix, right into Council and failed that one.
Because it was so intrusive into the side yard setback, or front yard
setback. Side yard setback. You know kind of an off the record
question, if the 12 foot was comfortable and a compromise, would you go
out of here screaming?
Harlan Leopold: Well, let's put it this way. To be honest with you, I'm
not going to out of here screaming. I work with kids. I teach school. I
don't operate that way. There's different levels of disappointment you
know. And I have to be honest with you. We were looking for the 16
feet. And like we pointed out at the beginning, it was the process that
we got caught in and it wasn't, you know it's partly our fault. The
City's fault. The builder's fault obviously. And we're caught with the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14-, 1992 - Page 5
situation. And I liked the comment you made that the system isn't
perfect. It certainly isn't. I would like to see the system changed a
little bit to help other people in the future.
Wing: Well it has.
Harlan Leopold: Has it? Oh, great. I would like to sign a certificate
of survey~ You're the tail of the dog.
Krauss: What we've been doing since '89 is recognizing that builders
don't often tell_ the buyers what they're getting into, where we have
patio doors put en walls that could not accept a patio, we've been
requiring the builder to remove it. Either that or Get the owner to sign
a certificate saying that they acknowledge that type of thing.
Harlan Leopold: When did that go into effect?
Krauss: '89 we started doing that.
Harlan Leopold: Ne built in '88.
Krauss: See we were doing it basically to protect the buyer from being
misled. Because we don't, there's an arrangement between you and the
buyer, we have no idea what they're told.
Harlan Leopold: Yeah, and we were told some other things too that were
unfortunately not kosher. But yeah.
Wing: I'm just comfortable that, I guess I'll just repeat what I said.
Is the 16 seems to be very abusive and obtrusive and we're really setting
a precedent and then we're not upholding what we've done on the last
couple where we said no. 12 gives them fairly adequate room. Fairly
adequate space and I feel we've been fair about giving that. I take a
position that they're entitled to something.
Johnson: Where do you want to go with this?
Wing: Are you looking for a motion?
Watson: I Guess I, you know I would be comfortable with that.
Johnson: Yeah, I'm looking for a motion.
Watson: Okay, I'll move the motion to approve a 6 foot front yard, side
yard setback variance for a porch, 6490 White Dove Drive. Harlan
Leopold.
Wing: I'll second that.
Watson moved, Wing seconded to approve a 6 foot frontyard/sideyard
setback variance for a porch at 6490 White Dove Drive, with an addendum
stating that the deck can't exceed the dimentions of 12 x 16. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Harlan Leopold: Thank you very much. Could I just ask one point of
Board of AdJustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 6
information? The fee for applying for a variance. That was changed?
When was that changed?
Watson: We don't get into that at all.
Harlan Leopold: The reason I see that is, if you look at the file and it
was in March of this year they paid $75.00. We were charged
Al-Jarl: Oh, there's a $50.00 recording fee. One of the problems was
that we often depended on the applicants to record their variances and
they never did it. So the City decided that it's time for us to do it
and so our City Attorney records all variances. In fact, all
applications. It's not just variances.
Harlan Leopold: Has this been changed in the Minutes?
Krauss: We did change, I don't remember when it was but yes, it was by
Council action to change it... Technically the fee is still $75.00. It's
the recording that we never charged for because we weren't doing it
before. We were depending on you to do it. Some of that is the recording
fee itself. Yeah, I think $30.00 of
Johnson: One question Mr. Leopold. Is this going to be the same width?
Watson: Would you still do the 16 feet the other way?
Harlan Leopold: I don't know right now.
Watson: Can I just say, can we have a slight addendum so that...any
longer than 16 feet the other way?
Harlan Leopold: It wouldn't be longer. Not at all. It could be less.
Watson: Okay. Well, I'm just going to add that as a little addendum to
the variance so that we know that it can't be any bigger than 12 x
Okay? Thank you sir.
BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
9981 DEER DRIVE, LOT 8, BLOCK 1, DEERBROOK, JAMES STELLICK.
Al-Jarl: The applicant is proposing to build a single family residence
on a property that is within the bluff area. The ordinance requires a 30
foot setback from the top of the bluff, which I have highlighted in green
on the survey. The applicant is building with a zero setback. Or is
proposing to build with a zero setback to the bluff. What I have
highlighted in red is where the green begins and of course it covers all
the area up to the bluff. Where the applicant is proposing to place the
residence will destroy a large number of trees. Eventually this will
cause erosion and it would defeat the purpose of protecting, defeat the
purpose of the bluff ordinance. The bluff protection ordinance. There
are other designs that the applicant could pursue. We can't find a
hardship. We are recommending denial of this application.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 7
Watson: Could I, do you mind if I start? I just have a question.
~ohnson: Go ahead.
Watson: Could we just run through one more time, how people were
notified of, I know that the bluff ordinance is a relatively new
ordinance and the process to notify people that this was in fact to be
reality.
Krauss: We did several, I mean in addition to the normal procedure of
publication in the paper, we did several mailings to all the properties
that we could identify that were located in the proposed bluff area. And
in fact we made some allowances to some of those whereby building permits
which were filed before the date that the ordinance became effective were
honored. But I know that we had a lot of those people out at the
meetings to discuss things and toured some of the sites that were brought
into question.
Watson: So we made what would be considered by city standards, an
extraordinary effort to make sure that people were in fact notified and
aware of?
Krauss: Oh, we did the best job we could, yeah.
Watson: Yeah, that the ordinance did exist and that they would from this
point forward be living with that. Because we seem to be seeing...
A1-3aff: The owner of the property was made aware of the bluff
ordinance.
~ohnson' Do you wish to address this sir?
Jim Stellick' Good evening. My name is 3im Stellick and my wife Rit. a
gtellick is here. I guess I'd like to start by saying I was extremely
disappointed to see that the staff declined to recommend this. This has
been kind of a long time dream. The home proposed is a walkout. To my
knowledge, every other home in the development is a walkout and if I
understand this correctly, it means that a walkout cannot be built on
this site. Regarding the trees, this site is approximately 400,000
square feet. I'm sorry, the treed portion of the site is approximately
400,000 feet. We're talking about removing trees. Granted. We must
remove trees. Unfortunately there are trees where the house is proposed.
However, that area represents actually less than 1% of the treed area.
We love trees as much as anybody. We anticipate trying to move every
possible tree that we can to put them to the north side of the site. I'm
not sure the basis of the denial. The house is set back 30 feet from the
bluff line. That was the instruction. To my knowledge that's what it
is. The balconies or the decks encroach on the bluff line but not the
structure itself. The first proposal to the city did include a site
located further towards the bluff line. We modified that. Again, my
concern on a walkout is the further you set a house back, the more you're
disturbing the site, not the less. Therefore, we tried to disturb it
less by having it to the front. Apparently there's a concern about
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 8
erosion. I think the person that gets hUrt the most by erosion is not
the city or the State or the Federal government, it's the landowner.
This is an expensive lot with a very nice view. It would be a disaster
for the o~ner if they were to build a house like this to have the bluff
e¥ode. This would not happen. We would not allow it to happen, t think
several things that can be done to stop erosion. Incidentally, we're not
talking about trees on the bluff being removed. The trees that are
discussed here are on the plateau, up on top. Some of those trees are 50
to 70 feet back from the bluff line. We would intend to keep every
single tree that we could keep on that site. And in fact plant more and
transplant. So I think there is a hardship and the hardship is, that-the
perponderance of homes in that area are walkouts. In fact I think .
they're all walkouts. And what this denial is saying, that you cannot
build a walkout on that site. To me a two story home is not what we want
t.o do. We cannot buy this lot if it means that you must build a
story. The only reason I think you would build a two story is because of
the bluff ordinance. And if you did that, you would still need a
variance because on a t~4o story you could not remove trees from the
bluff. So therefore there would be really no point in buying that lot if
you couldn't see the bluff. Have a view or remove trees. You'd want to
buy a 2 acre site which is about the flat part on top~ and build your two
story house here. I don't know how anybody could buy this lot and build
on it really with anything but a walkout and again a walkout is going to
take some trees close to that bluff. The further you set .it back away
from the bluff, the more of a problem it is from how t interpret the
bluff ordinance. There are several requirements that meeting in order to
get a variance. I believe we meet them all. I disagree with the
planning report. I think it's called Section A. I believe there is
undue hardship for the reasons I stated. Again, it's less than 1~ of the
trees. 1~ of the site. 1~ of the site that's being effected. Section
B. Apparently there's no dispute regarding our qualifying, nor in
Section C nor in D. I'm sorry, D. The staff feels it's a self created
hardship. I don't understand that in that I don't think a walkout.
do have a requirement for a walkout. In the report I think you have it
that we're caring for a mother. ~e do need access on two different
levels. ~4e're anticipating more care in the future for family. That's
one of the reasons we want a walkout. We cannot build a two story home.
It doesn't, service any function. I believe that this is a hardship. A
denial of this variance because every other home in the neighborhood is a
k, al kout and to my knowledge, the Tauton house to the west apparently was
approved just prior to the passing of the bluff ordinance. A matter
within a month. That home I believe is closer to the bluff than what
we're proposing. Furthermore, it's my knowledge that recently a variance
was granted 'For a swimming pool that is again close to the bluff.
Between the bluff and the house. Now if You're concerned about erosion
on the bluff, I question how you can allow a swimming pool which almost
by definition will not allo,~ any water to soak in. The kJater alk~ays is
going to have to run off of that area. Therefore I think it is a
hardship. I believe there are other homes that also were granted permits
before the passing of this variance that would now need a variance~ And
therefore we are in conformance. [Vhat we're asking for is in conformance
with other homes in the area and the reason that we pursued this
purchase. [4e're not the original acquirer. We just signed a purchase
agreement July 1st, was because we were led to believe that other homes
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 9
also did not meet the strict requirements of the bluff ordinance and did
have variances and we are in conformance with the other homes. We are
not in conformance with the bluff ordinance. The decks were put onto
that site by the survey crew. Not'by the home designer. The decks, they
wouldn't be that big and I'm not even sure they'd be where they're
proposed. Those decks could be modified but again, the building is
supposed to be set 30 feet back, therefore not requiring a variance. The
decks are what would infringe on the setback.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Watson: ...draw the 30 foot setback on that drawing. Is there any way
you can do that? Where 30 feet from the bluff line would be. We don't
know exactly where it is.
Jim Stellick: If I might...
Johnson: Is that dotted line now?
Wing: Paul, have you been working this one?
Krauss: No, Sharmin has and she's just run up to get her scale so we can
repeat the exercise that she want through in the office. A couple things
to clarify though. The deck is part of the structure. It's subject to
the same setback and now you're telling us that the deck that's
illustrated here on the plan you gave us is not in reality.
Jim Stellick: I'm saying that that could easily be modified. Much more
easily than the building itself. I'm aware that the deck is part of the
structure.
3ohnson: This one corner of the house is kind of iffy right now...
Wing: Do we have a clear cut position on where the bluff line is?
Krauss: Yeah, that's established by official map.
Watson: I .just measured the 30 feet out and went around the edge.
Wing: I don't think we have to worry about this plan or the decks or
anything else. The issue is, upholding the ordinance~
Krauss: We think the surveyor identified the bluff line rather well.
You have the full size copy there? That dashed line.
Wing: Where are we at on this one? Are there more-comments here?
Johnson: Do you have any more comments right now?
Jim Stellick: I'm happy to answer questions. Other than that, no.
Wing: There's no sense trying to work off these maps.
Krauss: No, you've got to work off of the full size one.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page lO
Wing: Yeah, and the plan has to be varied, etc, etc. The issue is.
Krauss: -Yeah, we have it for you right here. As a matter of fact, if
you want to walk that up.
Wing: So this proposal does incringe on the bluff line protection
ordinance?
Johnson: Yeah.
Watson: Yeah. The house itself does cut the corners.
Johnson: Maybe we want to open this for discussion.
Wing: Mr. Stellick, I was involved in the bluff line preservation. It's
probably one of the ordinances that I most believed in for the city, and
this was a very lengthy process. It involved a lot of public hearings.
A lot of give and take and even the owners out there agreed. You know
for the best of the city long term, this ordinance was good and I held my
breath that it was going to pass. And in fact it did and it's a recent
ordinance. Out on Lake Minnewashta where I live, there's all sorts of
restrictions. If this was my lot, I'd be building the house right where
it is. That's where I would like it. On Lake Minnewashta I'd like my
house right on the lake with a boathouse out over the water but I can't
do that. I voted for this ordinance and I think it was a good ordinance.
I think it was in the best interest of the city long term. It protected
the Bluff Creek corridor. Erosion came into it. Sight lines came into
it and serving on the Council and having the Council vote for this
ordinance unanimous, it'd be almost impossible for me to support your
position and grant you a variance. It'd be denying the ordinance.
Whether you build a walkout or two story or three story, what you build
there is your business. But I can't take any position that would
incringe on that 30 foot setback. That to me is a black and white
ordinance and I think those rules were agreed to be applied uniformily
and pretty firmly from this point on. What occurred before in the give
and take that's occurred, are kind of separate issues. But since the
passage of the ordinance, I haven't seen any interest in the Council from
give or take on this issue at all. In fact being more protective. So
I understand your positions.
Watson: Well, erosion is the real issue with Bluff Creek~
Wing: Well, erosion's an issue. Sight line's an issue but this
ordinance was put in to protect the 8luff Creek corridor and the
Minnesota River Valley bluff and we're denying the ordinance if we were
to go along with your request and to support the staff recommendation. I
can't vote for this ordinance on one Monday and turn around and deny it
the next.
Jim Stellick' May I respond? Two points. Number one, I believe that
the variance was granted on the adjacent house for a swimming pool~
Wing: Well that's not going to help me on this decision. Since I passed
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 1l
this ordinance, I'm not aware of that swimming pool request. I'm .just
not willing to let people build into the ordinance we just passed.
Krauss: The one with the swimming pool was on a house that was built
before the adoption of the ordinance. The swimming pool was illustrated
on those plans. Because the ordinance passed, we had them revise the
pool design to pull it back as far as possible.
Uatson: We revised that pool considerably. Made it smaller and pulled
it ~ay in.
Wing: And we didn't like it. But because of the give and take on the
process, I remember that one.
Jim Stellick: When did the ordinance get approved?
Krauss: October of last year.
Jim Stellick: The swimming pool was approved in the spring of this year.
Watson: We know that.
Wing: We know we did. We're not arguing that. It was the why's of how
it. occured.
Resident: Well I just had the question, I'm the lot owner of Lot 10 in
Oeerbrook. And I'm interested in keeping the values up in that area.
Paul Tauton's home is at least a three quarter of a million dollar home
~hich I'm happy about. And to deny this, in my opinion, if you deny them
to actually build that type of a home, that type of a home is the primo
type home and anyone that wants to invest $120,000.00 in a piece of
land... If you deny that type of a home, then you affect ail property
value and land value, and you affect the people in that area's overall
value of homes which concerns me.
Wing: If you were at the hearings on this, that was an argument and l
think we made it clear that the type of home you build is your concern.
You can build any home you want to. All we're saying is the homes are no
longer going to be into, out over, or down the bluff. That's all. We
put a stop to that and Paul, maybe you can clarify this. But I'm
defending the ordinance and I'm not going to yeild on the ordinance and
this is more than welcome to go to the City Council. Again, speaking for
myse].f. But there's so much time and effort into this. I'm just going
to be, my position is that I will not give on this variance, and on this
ordinance. The protection ordinance is a new ordinance that has a lot of
credibility and I'm not about to incringe on it right off the bat, so I
can't go along with your request.
Jim Stellick: May I make two comments. Number one, I'm quoting from the
ordinance now and it says that you do have a right to have a variance.
It. says variances that blend wi%h these pre-existing standards without
departing from them meet this criteria. This house meets that.
According to your legislation here that qualifies for a variance.
Secondly, I'd like to ask, if this house were moved back another say I0
8card of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 12
feet so that technically it doesn't encroach within 30 feet of the bluff,
would you approve it then?
Krauss: Well, I think that if the house were pulled back the 10 feet and
we had a revised deck design that was consistent with that, you wouldn't
need a variance.
Jim Stellick: My point is you would.
Krauss: Why?
Jim Stellick: And my point is that you hurt this site by doing that.
You're going away from your objectives of trying to stop erosion. Trying
to maintain trees. The further you set back a walkout house on a site
that overlooks a valley, the more Ground you're carving up. The further
away you get, the worse it is. That's why we try to come to the front.
We actually started closer to the front and Sharmin rejected it and we
modified it. Moved it back and we can move this house back. I would
rather' have it back but you're carving out a lot of Ground and that's
what I don't think is appropriate.
Krauss: But you're assuming that you'd be allowed to remove the bluff
line and excavate to wherever the home is.
Jim Stellick: That's why I asked. If we move this house back, would it
be approved?
Krauss: The ordinance says, let me see if I can find the right portion.
Topographic alterations, grading and filling within the bluff impact zone
shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage .... property fill
excavated material shall not be placed in the bluff impact zone. You're
only allowed to remove enough vegetation so that you can provide a
limited view from your home. You're not supposed to clear cut. Those
things are all prohibitions in the ordinance. Arguably you would not be
allowed to say my home is now set back 50 feet, I'm going to create a new
bluff line by, or an extended one by excavating that out.
Johnson: I can't go along with it either for the simple reason,
according to the sketch...rough sketch we've all seen, that house is
already setting into the setback. If you're Going to throw decks on it~
we're going to be way back into it~ As I understand the ordinance to
begin with, decks would have to be outside of the .... the deck would
have to be outside of the bluff line. So therefore you~d have to move
the house forward enough to allow for a set of decks and a house and not
coming back for a variance 2 weeks from now for anything. That house
would have to be moved period as far as I'm concerned to allow for a
deck.
Watson: How do we allo~ for stabilization of the ground...The uncovered
ground to be a rea! problem for us for a considerably period of time.
Krauss: Yeah, we do under the building permit require that erosion
control be established and maintained. That it be reseeded as soon as
possJ, ble~ ~de've also required that roof drainage systems be revised so
Board of AdjusLrnents and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 13
that it's not focused at any one point. Drainage off the driveways can't
be focused, because that's what really does it. Once you rechannel the
water over the hill and it starts to go, it just keeps going.
Jim Stellick: We would be happy to comply with any drainage problem that
a house there creates. We're not trying to get around that.. Don't want
the water to erode the bluff.
Johnson: I'll call for a motion.
Wing: I think if there's any question, I'd prefer to have this go to
Council.
Watson: I think we should vote on it. I think we have an opinion.
Wing: I'm going to move denial of e92-11 variance for the address of.
Watson: It's Lot 8, Block I, Deerbrook. I'll second that.
Johnson: I would like to see it, if you want to throw it in your motion,
that it's got to meet, for the reasons, it's got to meet the deck
setbacks and everything. I guess you'd hassle that over in the future.
Wing: All I 'm doing is.
Johnson: Denying it.
Wing: Yeah, the bluff preservation ordinance is taking precedent here
and there's ne incringement on that 30 foot setback. And by denying
this, we've done that.
Wing moved, Watson seconded to deny Variance ¢92-11 for Lot 8, Block 1,
Peerbrook. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Johnson: The reason I voted that way is, I want everything, one of our
reasens to set back decks and all has to be away from the bluff line.
Wing: Paul, if there's a disagreement with our position here, what's the
applicant's?
Krauss: You have the right to appeal this decision to the City Council.
If you'd .just notify Sharmin that you'd like to do that. If we get your
appeal quick enough, and you can put it in writing if you want, explain
your position, it will go to the Council on the 28th.
Jim Stellick: Well we don't have much time. We may very well have lost
the lot but we will try that. Thank you.
Johnson: Can we move for a motion to close the public hearings.
Wing: So moved.
Jim Stellick: Where do you get copies of that?
Watson: The ordinance?
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 14, 1992 - Page 14
Jim Ste]..lick: Where do you get copies of that?
Watson: Go to the Planning Department.
Krauss: Do you want a copy of the ordinance?
3im Stellick: This variance~ The setback variance.
Wing: The bluff preservation ordinance? You can have my copy right here
if you'd like it.
Watson: ...I'guess I've lost it but I'm sure it was just about ground
stabilization and how long we take them to make.
Krauss' It's as long as the construction process goes on. The building
inspector's supposed to insure that it's taken care of before the house
is closed up. Bigger homes take a longer time to build though.
Watson: Yeah, I understand that. Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Watson: I have one quick question on the Minutes. Sharmin, did Todd
have any comment about our?
Al-Jarl: No. In fact I got a phone call from someone who ~as interested
in buying the house and he said, he really disliked the deck~.and at a
future date he would like to come in front of you and apply for a smaller
deck...
Watson: That's great. I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
August 24th.
Wing: Second.
Watson moved, WinQ seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals meeting dated AuGust 24, 1992 as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson moved~ Win~ seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meetin~ was adjourned at 7:30 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Erauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim