Loading...
1989 08 28BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 28, 19~9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Ursula Dimler STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner VARIANCE TO THE LOT DEPTH AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS LOCATED AT 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, CARL MCNUTT Staff presented the staff report. Carl McNutt stated that he lived in Chanhassen when it was still a township and Pleasant View Road was not all road. He main- tains 20 feet of the road which lies on his property and kept it mowed, etc. He stated that he also pays taxes for the property which he cannot use. A neighbor stated that they are concerned about drainage and they want the grade and drainage to be maintained. Dimler asked if the home at 205 Pleasant View Road received a variance. Olsen stated that they meet the setback requirements. Mr. McNutt stated that his neighbor stated that he would sell him 10 feet of his lot and that way it won't be non-conforming. Dimler stated that the applicant should try to buy some land from his neighbor and pursue the matter then. Mr. McNutt stated that if he could not subdivide his property he would not maintain it any more. Watson stated that the subdivision will result in two non- conforming lots. Dimler moved, seconded by Johnson, to deny the variance request because it results in two non-conforming lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A 7.4 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING GARAGE AT 7410 CHANHASSEN ROAD, FRED OELSCHLAGER Staff presented the report. Mr. Oelschlager stated that there are fully grown trees separating his property from his neighbor's property. He stated that the enlargement portion will be exactly the same as the existing garage. A neighbor stated that he would rather have Mr. Oelschlager build his garage where he is proposing to build it. He stated that the Board of Adjustments Minutes August 28, 1989 Page 2 location he has chosen does not affect him at all and he is not opposed to it. He stated that if Mr. Oelschlager builts the garage facing the lake then he would have to stare at the garage and would rather see it in his back yard. Watson stated that she could understand what the neighbor was stating but it is difficult to make a decision other then to deny the variance because the zoning ordinance is in written in black and white on this issue. Mr. Oelschlager stated that the Board should make the decision on a case by case basis and in this case there is not harm done to the neighbors. Watson stated that this case be passed on to the Council, because the Board is still recommending denial because there is no hardship. Mr. Oelschlager asked about a compromise of 5 feet instead of the requested 10 feet. Dimler stated that he would have to apply for another variance. Dimler moved, seconded by Johnson, to deny the variance request to enlarge the existing garage. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Johnson, to close the public hearings. All voted in favor and the motion carried.