Loading...
1989 09 25BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Ursula Dimler STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planning Intern and Paul Krauss, Planning Director REAR YARD VARIANCE SETBACK REQUEST FOR AN EXISTING DECK, 1710 TEAL CIRCLE, WILLIAM FEBRY A1-Jaff presented the staff report to the Board. William Febry stated that he moved to 8 different states within the past 5 years and they have finally decided to put some stabi- lity in their lives and moved to Chanhassen. He stated that they were not familiar with the lows in Chanhassen. He stated that they listened to their builder and developer and put their trust in them. They were told that they could put the deck up. He stated that the deck did not appear on the plans because the Febrys wanted to design it themselves, and also the builder wanted to charge them extra so they would build it themselves. Dimler asked the applicant if they called for inspections on the footings? Mr. Febry stated that they did not no any thing about the way things were operated in Chanhassen. He stated that no one say anything about footings. He stated that new people in the area should be informed by the developer or contractor as to what they may or may not do. He stated that the City should have something established for first time builders as well as first time resi- dents of Chanhassen. Tom Nye stated that everyone thinks he is the one that complained about the deck and he wanted to have it put on record that he has no objection to the Febrys deck. He stated that he did not understand why the Febrys were singled out because there are worst cases such as 1730 Wood Duck Circle, where his deck runs to the property line. He urged the Board to grant the variance for the Febrys. Mike Custer stated that this really upsets. He stated that he is a developer and knows of many people who have put on decks or remodeled their basements with no building permits. He stated that he knows the City must set an example but hoped it would not be the Febrys. Dimler stated that someone registered a compliance and the City has to do what is fair. She stated that the state gives the City certain guidelines to follow. She stated to the applicant that it is her understanding that the deck could have been built without a variance. Mr. Febry stated that the City should realize that they are not familiar with the laws and the builder did not inform us of the need for the variance or the building permit. BOA Minutes September 25, 1989 Page 2 Dimler stated that these things are no secrets to the builders. She stated that the builder has to tell the homeowner. She stated that most times they put a sliding door in and the owner assumes that he can put a deck up even though there is no place to put it. Mr. Febry asked what the Board would consider a hardship? Dimler stated a slope where you cannot build a garage, or have to cut trees, the topography of the land, or the existence of wetlands. She stated that money does not constitute a hardship. She asked the City Attorney if he would tell us what options the applicant has. Roger Knutson stated that the Board can either approve the variance or deny it. He stated that the present structure is illegal or have the homeowner correct the problem. Watson moved, seconded by Dimler, to deny the request for a 9 foot rear yard variance for an existing deck and a 2 foot rear yard variance for an existing deck. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, seconded by Dimler to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.