1991 11 18CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1991
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard 2ohnson, Carol Watson and Tom Workman
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Oaff, Planner I;
and Elliot[ Knetsch, City Attorney
A 5,95? SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A
HOME, 750 CREE DRIVE (LOTS 1435-1439, CARVER BEACH), FRANK DAUGHENBAUGH.
Al-Oaff: The lot is located within the Carver Beach subdivision. The
subdivision was created in 1929. The applicant owns a lot that has an area
of 9,043 square feet. The ordinance requires 15,000 square feet per lot.
It's a lot of record. The applicant has been in ownership of this lot
slnce 1932. It's never been subdivided as a part of the larger
development. The proposed single family residence maintains the required
setback. The 30 foot front yard and the 10 foot slde yard .... 2 car
garage. We surveyed the area within 500 feet. and discovered the average
lot size to be 14,500 square feet but we also discovered that there were
some lots that had an area of 9,000 feet... The hardship is not self
created, aga±n it is a lot of record. This is a classic case of when a
variance is granted. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined
in the report. Thank you.
Johnson: Hr. Daughenbaugh do you want to speak flrst? You have anything
you want to say flrst or do you want to wait?
Frank Daughenbaugh: I think the young lady has covered it pretty
thoroughly. Perhaps Z could answer questLons as questions come up~
Johnson: Are there any neighbors here?
Scott Nelson: Yes.
Johnson: State your name and address.
Scott Nelson: I'm Scott Nelson. We live at 767 Carver Beach Road which is
the ple shaped lot that adjolns the lot that Hr. Daughenbaugh ls proposing
to build on. One of our concerns is that when we moved out to Chanhassen,
one of the things that we looked at was the flr trees, the space 1nbc[ween
the houses. By allowlng him to put a house in thene, lt's just golng to be
compacting everybody ln. There's a number of other lots in the
neighborhood that are of a simllar nature and this ls going to set a
precedence for all '[hose lots that have already been, lots of them already
have for sale slgns on them. We have other questions regarding the
drainage. That's a natural drainageway that runs through there. I saw the
neat 11ttle arrows on the blueprint but that doesn't always mean anything.
As far' as the setback goes, he does have a fireplace that's sticklng out
that is going to go into that 30 foot variance so Z don't know what
specifically Chanhassen's Codes are but we're concerned about that. The
other thln9 that concerns us is Hr. Daughenbaugh is not the actua], owner of
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
November 18, 1991 - Page 2
the lot. It's his father-in-law I believe and he has the power of attorney
and what we have here is someone who can come in, put up a home quick and
sell it for a nice profit. He doesn't live in the area. He doesn't have
to deal ~Jith it once the house is up. His hands are washed of it and he's
just hopping off to the bank and we don't mean any disrespect to hlm. Z
know that's part of business but that's one of our concerns living in the
Chanhassen area and we want to see the area preserved and allow the people
of C~zrver Beach to improve their homes and improve the neighborhood.
That's a11.
Johnson' How many square feet do you have on your property?
Scott Nelson: Z'm not sure of the exact. We would be close to 9,000. Our
house was bullt in 1951 though, before many of the homes are there now.
And if you were to ask me is Z was going to build there today, would
Z expect you to grant the variance. ~ would say no. That there should be
some open places and some woods and natural habitat around the area.
Johnson: Any other neighbors have objections wish to speak?
Kirsten Rojina: Ply name is Kirsten Rojina. I live at 751 Carver Beach
Road. We have the lot dlrectly across Cree Drive from the proposed
variance and Z just would like to state that Z'm extremely opposed to
9ranting a uarlance for thls lot. Zt's so substandard in terms of today's
lot sizes that Z don't even think it warrants consideration. Zt's almost
half of the 15,000 square foot requirement and when we purchased our house
about 2 1/2 years ago we t~lked with the Planning Department about the
possibility of that area being developed and they sald no. They really
don't even consider anythlng under 12,000 square feet. Presumably the
15,000 square foot standard was put in place for a reason and granted there
are times when you've got to allow variances but 12,000 square feet was
what they sald really they considered the cut off polnt. And so wlth that
in mind we just assumed that the Clty would not recommend approval of a
varlance for something just over 9,000 square feet and flnd that somewhat
disturbing. Zt's too small of a lot really to be developed in an area like
thls and the average lot slze, as Sharmln indicated is almost 14,000
square feet in the area. 6ranted there are unbuildable lots throughout
Carver Beach and that adds to lt's charm. Zt's not a planned unlt
development which allows for smaller lots when you compensate with park
areas and what not. Zt's not that situation and Z'd just 11ke to encourage
you all to vote against this variance. Thank you.
Watson: Bo you want to take a few mlnutes to explain about lots of record
and how they flt in with the zoning ordinance and there was a sewer
assessment already placed on this lot as well wasn't there? Would you just
like to take a few minutes to.
Krauss: Carver Beach is really the, it doesn't fit the mold wlth the rest
of the city and we've known 'that for a long time. Mrs. Rojina is correct.
When you asked what the lot slze is, city lot slze, the ordinance says wlth
single fatally lots are 15,000 square feet but lots of recor'd down to 75~ of
that requirement, if lt's 11,000...can be bullt on wlthout a variance. The
dangling part of that is somebody always has a right to apply for a
varlance to make a lot bulldable below that mlnlmum. You get lnto a legal
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
November 18, 1991 .,~ Page 3
issue when lots of record. We wouldn't allow this lot to be created today
and unfortunately that doesn't do us a whole lot o'f good because it does
exlst. This is a lot of record prior to the creatlon of our zoning
ordinance. We asked the City Attorney to be present tonight because
there's always a question of what obligation does the City have towards
this lot. We specifically asked the Attorney about thls question and we've
been told in the past that the Clty, to...extent the Clty has an obligation
to make a lot of record buildable if 'they can demonstrate that they can put
a home on it without additional variances. We pretty much have an
obligation, perceived obligation to make it buildable or else we've taken
away the only economlc justification for havlng that lot. In other words
we can buy it is basically the alternative recourse that's open. I don't
know that there's, you know we've never bought one before and.~Clty
Council to ask that question but. It's really more of an unfortunate
situation. I don't say that 11ghtly. I ~lsh we could be more pro-active
in these things but the City runs a very real risk of suit unless this is
made bulldable. Boardmember Matson points out that there was an
assessment. I forgot about that but in the past we've assessed this, the
utllties to bulld a lot so the hlstory ls there. It's a lot of record.
They've demonstrated they can fit a fairly normal house on it and we're a
11ttle blt boxed in on it I'm afrald. If the Attorney wanted to add
anything. Elliott, did I sum up your position on that?
Elliott Knetsch: ~ think you have covered it pretty well. Again, what
Paul is saying is basically that we're obligated to let the property owner
make a reasonable use of thelr property. Zf we tell them that they cannot
use their property, we're in the position of a taking under the
Constitution and if we take property we have to pay for lt.
Scott Nelson: What's the market value placed on the property if you take
it? Zf the Zormlng Commission or the Clty of Chanhassen deems it
Ltnbuildable that makes the parcel practically worthless.
Kirsten Rojina: Or what has it been assessed at in the past? It certainly
hasn't been assessed as a buildable lot.
Watson: It has been assessed as a buildable lot.
Kirsten Rojina: b~hat have the taxes been on it? Actually as a lot?
Watson: It's been assessed utilities, sewer and water.
Kirsten Rojina: Utilities but I meant the property taxes. Certainly not
as a bulldable lot.
Scott Nelson: It's assessed at $5,000.00 as a vacant lot. I don't think
if it was Russell, Hr. Tenny who was putting the house on there to live in
for the next 10 years, we wouldn't 11ke it anymore but we'd understand
because he's the original owner of it. But lt's not the original owner
that's puttlng the house there. He's not going to be around once the last
shingle goes on that house and we're going to be sitting there looking at a
3 story house out our front window that's 21 feet by 2~. That's going to
be like a s11o. Zt doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Zf you are going
to let hlm bulld, then how small are you golng to go? Lots 'that are ~,000
Board of adjustments and appeals
Nouember 18, 1991 - Page 4
square feet? 5,000 square feet? Where's the city finally going to draw
'[he line and say enough is enough,
Gary Bass: My name is Gary Bass. I live at 760 Carver Beach Road which is
the... I sugges't maybe we reflect back if I may to the description of a
land use plan alright and it reflects back to the best use of the land for
the majority of tile population you know and I'm not sure that this
applicant has in mind. Other factors that might affect the plan in~Jolve
economic SLtpply o'f land resource. So within the Chanhassen area what other
resources, residential one do we have of ~hlch a resldent mlght buy to
build a single family residential unit. Z'm assuming there's many.
essentially what ls the need for allowlng a variance? Zf there's a
substantial amount of land available for residential one, why 1n fact do
have to rezone or allow variances in lot slzes that are substandard?
just would like to revert back to basics here a little bit. As Scott
stated, someplace we're going to have to draw the line here. alrlght, just
keep that in mind. Thank you.
Johnson: The attorney said we either have a choice of buying it, unless
you neighbors would like to buy it.
Gary Bass: Condemnation is a factor. You can always condemn this
property.
Scott Nelson: We can't afford $29,000.00 for the lot which Mr.
Oaughenbaugh wanted. We would be willing to explore the possibility of
buylng the lot from the Clty should they condemn it plus condemnation fees.
Johnson: Well I as a citizen and I think I talk for a few of the other
citizens. I don't feel we should spend taxpayers money to buy the lot and
go into condemnation because I know we'll get whipped in court if you want
to know the honest truth, from past experience.
Watson: Because it's a lot of record. It was created back in the 1930's
and has not changed. If anything changes on a lot, that changes our
ability to deal with that piece of property but this lot has been a lot of
record since 1932 and it has not changed configuration. It's never been
built OF1.
Scott Nelson: Has it ever come up for a variance before?
Watson: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Scott Nelson: We had heard that Mr. Woitella has tried to construct on
that piece of property.
Watson: Not on that piece.
Frank Daughenbaugh: Mr. Tenny never, ever considered sale of it so I know
it would not have come up to your board.
Watson: It's not the same piece of property.
Board of Adjus'LI'nents and Appeals
November 18, 1991 -~ Page 5
Frank Daughenbaugh: ...build a rustic little house there and have it as a
retreat but he is now 86 >,ears old arid he is not. going to do that.
Stuart Horn: My name is Stuart Horn and I designed the building that is
proposed for the s.ite. It's actually 45 feet x 28 overali and is not
really 3 storles. It meets 'the helght requirements and I thlnk one of the
things that has to be kept in mind in looking at a site like this from a
deslgn point of view is if you had a very much smaller one, ~,000 or
whatever, you could not meet the normal site setbacks and for practical
purposes it could not be bullt on. But in this situation you can bulld a
house that is very compatible in character and size with the other homes in
the area. Probably would be a 11ttle hlgher rallied than many of them but
some of the newer homes in there are of hlgher value. It fits tile site
properly. If it ~oere a lot smaller, then it would not. ~ belleve the lot
to the north is actu.~lly smaller but a lot of the other ones there are
larger. There's good separation. I've designed an awful lot of homes in
thls area and the houses that are along the park and there is a very large
park area there that at least appears on mine and it appears there of land
that ls not used for anything but park and the homes that face the park are
way down the hill so the separation from the subject slte and the houses to
the east is much larger than in many areas where there are very, very large
homes and very large lots. So there's st111 Z belleve a great deal of
separation even if thLs compact...is put there~ But Lt Ls not, it will not
appear like a tower. 'rt has fairly steep roof lines on the garage so it
lsn't looking 11ke a s11o or somethLng 11ke that. And that's one reason
why ~ believe we put the whole plan in so people would get a flavor of
what's going Ln there. In that event. The other thought I had and it has
nothlng to do with design and that is that just because somebody's
approaching 90 years ago does not mean-that those that are looking after
thelr lnterest as famlly should find that thls person's assets can be taken
away from them unconstitutionally and they're left with nothing slmply
becak~se they're too old. Z don't thlnk that's rlght elther. Z don't see
Mr. Oaughenbaugh as a profiteer running off to spend the money in the
Bahama's. Thls is money that is needed to care for an elderly gentleman.
Workman: Elliott, is there anything that 'the City Council could set up by
way of ordinance regarding situations 11ke thls? Is there any ordinance
that the City Council could create that would allow the neighbors to decide
or the Counc11 to decide that thls is not an appropriate use?
Elliott Knetsch: Well essentially that's what your zoning ordinance does.
Today as we've heard, thls lot can not be a bulldable lot~ It doesn't meet
the minimum square 'Footage requirements but we can only apply our
ordinances from the date they're enacted on. You can't make them
retroactive which is why a lot like this continues to exist as a legal,
non-conforming lot. I thlnk by way of ordinance you could for the future
looking at this area and others where it's not conforming legal lots of
record may exlst and we make it a pollcy to try to address these. Make it
a pollcy to acqulre these lots but for this one I don't see that as a
vlable possibility. And earller it was mentioned that the Clty could
possibly bring condemnation action and I thlnk that's developable because
the flrst requirement of any condemnation ls publlc purpose. What would be
the public purpose of acquiring that parcel?
Board of Adjustments and (~ppea].s
November 18, 1991 - Page 6
Workman' Re-election. That's about it. I'm sorry for being frank but
I mean maybe you're right. That's what I knew you'd sa>,. I mean that's
really the only t hlng it would accomplish.
Elliott Knetsch' If it was to the east and abutted into park property,
then there ,~Ol.~ld be a public purpose in acquiring it for parkland but wlth
lots there which if I understood the discussion, there are already homes
on, there's no way to make it contiguous to the park and it doesn't make
sense to acquire that to enhance your park. So basically it's there
because it goes back prlor to our zonlng ordlnance. We only have
jurisdiction over things as of the date of our ordinance.
Workman' Does thls home create any other variances? No?
Watson' No.
Workman: Does this variation impair an adequate supply of light and air?
Al-Jeff: It maintains all the required setbacks.
Workman: It's just really frustrating because it really is a tight squeeze
and it's going to be a tight squeeze or it's going to be a big impact to
the people who live there. Z don't know Z guess we're approving to what
degree the City has control over that and I guess we don't have any~ I
know it's a frustrating situation for the neighbors.
Gary Bass: What use Ls the zoning? l'hat's my question. You buy property
in the neighborhood and you come up wlth situations like this where the
property is allowed to build on Ln that amount of land. Why not throw the
zonlng ordinance out the door?
Watson: There's lots of lots in Carver Beach that are this size.
Gary Bass' I understand that but there has to be a line drawn somewhere
Johnson: I guess I have to throw something back at you. You come up and
asked us so you could build your garage here a few years back and I guess
that's a similar sitLtation. We could have said hey no. We don't want you
to have a garage Z guess.
Hrs. Bass: We bettered the neighborhood by putting the garage there and
that was two lots and that would have made that little corner lot available
to bulld on too and stuck another house in there. By bullding the
garage...and it leaves the neighborhood open with trees. Our garage is an
asset.
Watson' But you couldn't subdivide your lot and make a lot this size at
this point in tlme and make it buildable.
Gary Bass' To the south of us...if this variance is granted you know.
5ohnson' You can't subdivide. '
Soat-d of Adjustments and Appeals
November 18, 1991 - Page ?
Watson: You cannot subdivide them. They must be lots of record prlor to
the zoning ordinance. You could not create this lot today.
Mrs. Bass: Our garage...and people go around the corner awfully fast and
it's a safety thing.
Watson: I understand. The garage is done.
Mrs. Bass: He wanted to bring up the garage.
Johnsorl: No, I'm just saying some people come and ask us for this and that
and, okay. Army more discussion?
Workman: Elliott, what does a unanimous vote in favor of a variance, does
that allow the neighborhood to, does that disa. llow the neighborhood from
appealing to the Counc117
Kr'auss: I can answer that. No. Any aggrieved. Our process calls for any
aggrieved party, i.e. yourselves to register an appeal to whatever decision
is made tonlght withln 4 worklng days. By Friday evenlng. And if we get
an appeal to the variance, while it will be approved by then, we'll stitl
place it on hold and have the City Councll evaluate lt. So what we do ls
schedule it for the next availabl, e meeting which would be Oecember 9th and
let the City Council make the final determination.
Scott Nelson: If it does not get approved for the variance does it have to
go to Councll anyway?
Krauss: No.
Scott Nelson: It does not?
Me]. Herrmann: My name is Mel Herrmann. I live at Z95 Carver Beach Road.
Our home was bui].~ when it was still a Chanhassen township so lot. size
dldn't mean a whole lot. It's these lots right here. Since then we
acquired these four. It's under a separate deed. Would we be able to
build a home there...8,500?
A1-Jaf'f: No.
Mel Herrmann: Why not? It's a separate deed.
Al-aaff: It's under single ownership. Therefore it's one lot.
Hel Herrmann: We bought it at the same time though.
Al-Jarl: But it's under single ownership.
Frank Oaughenbaugh: Actually this is five lots, not one.
Al-Jeff: Yeah, I understand how the>, were split up back when they did it
back in the 30's. None of Carver Beach ls one lot. They're all
combinations of many parcels.
Board of Adjustments ,'_~nd Appeals
November 18, 19.°,1 .~ Page 8
Mel Her'rmarln~ The same thing he're. You said the lot size~ There was
prob,~.bly a. homo there built a long time ago.
Watson: I believe the gentleman said it was 19517
Scott Nelson' bJhen our house was built?
Watson: Yeah.
Scott Nelson: Yes.
~ohnson: I'll entertain a motion.
Gary Bass: I just want to say that I understand that this gentleman you
know is trying to make a few bucks and whether it's to support his father-
in-law, that's commendabl, e. While 'the City owes him a certain
responslbilty to review thls, does not the City owe the people who are
current].y paying taxes 'there on property that's substantially greater'
value, doesn't the City owe them some of the same thlngs? You know thls is'
not written in stone. That's why we're here. Z currently live on Yuma
Orive and Z klnd of got into the neighborhood because everything was so
open and t~-~,_s, nice trees. Z followed the book when my house was built
at a t~ae when the rules we're not ~hat they are today but yet ~ had to
conform to all the regulations and zoning ordinances and that and Z guess
don't have a problem ~J. th 'that because thex're here to improve the
neighborhood and the area. But Z don't see th/s /mprovement to the
neighborhood. Z see this as just exploitation of a piece of land that's
just s~tting there and not doing anybody any good. Z don't know if this
happens that you get neighbors around gettlng upset everyt~me a variance is
required but I think we are worth somethLng also. Because we're there.
Watson: We understand that.
Gary Bass: I know. I know you guys are in a tough situation.
Watson: Yeah, we have a legal obligation which the Attorney's pointed out
and the City Planner's pointed out. The alternative is for the City to
purchase the lot. I'm not sure that that's really a viable alternative.
I mean ~ don't know wh,~t the City would do with these parcels if we did
start to acquire them. I'm not sure what we'd use them for and I'm sure
that you would find someone living on Lake Minnewashta not too happy to buy
lt.
Frank Daugher, baugh: I guess I'd point out that Mr. Tenny's ownership goes
back at least 30 years beyond anybody here. Newcomers want to take his
privJ, ledge away from him.
3ohnson: Gentleman in the back, did you wish to say something?
Resident: No.
Kirsten Rojina: I had one comment~ The gentleman up front, I didn't catch
him name said that the ordinance was written so that lots which were of
record prior to the adoptlon of the Zonlng Ordinance dld not need a
Board of AdjutstmenLs and appeals
Not, ember 18, 1991 -~ Page 9
variance if they were within 75% of our... I mean you are all acting
likethis is, now I guess I shouldn't say-that but I get the impre'ssion that
it:'~s cu.t a. nd dry because the Attorney has said that there is basically no
choice but we wou}dn't be here and ~t ~ou}dn't require a variance ~f ~t was
so cut and dry ~n my open,on, and the ~ay the ordinance ~as written, if it
n,~ds a v~r s .. _
~ lance it hould be subject to revlew ~nd Z guess Z ~ '
you. a~l to th~nk .... ~nd make a fair decision and not...by attorneys.
Watson: I don't feel 'threatened.
~ohnson' I don't feel threatened~
Workman: It's not cut and dry. I mean we can say no to the variance and
then we'd have to live, I'd have to live, as a City Council member at least.
with the repercussions of that action. The City attorney is saying do what
you want. They never tell us this is what you're going to do. They're
saying this is what's going to happen if you do that and I appreciate that
advice because you're right. What are we going to do with the lot and what
are ~e doing buying private lots ~hen ~e don~t need to put a ~ater to,er or
anything else on it. Condemning a lot and so that ~akes it very difficult
and I kno~ the Hayer here.
Kirsten Rojina: Does it absolutely require that the City condemn or buy an
unbuildable piece of land? I mean there must be tons of unbuildable
parcels of land, whether they be wetlands or for whatever reason are not
buildable and I don't think that that means that the City' is obligated to
purchase that from whoever happens to own it.
~ohnson: This gentleman's lot is a lot of record and we have no control
over it more or less.
Kirsten Rojina: You're saying it's cut and dry.
Johnson: I'm more or less saying because if this gentleman .takes LIS tO
Court he's golng to whip us. I hate to say it but if he wishes to flght
the Clty Attorney or us in Court, I mean that's a lot of record and the
city has assessed sewer assessments I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I thlnk we'd have a'hard tlme provlng it in court.
Resident: For $5,000.007
Watson' Well the County taxes though aren't the same issue that we're
deallng with.
Al-Jeff: The County contacts us usually and asks us if the lots are
buildable. What we do is say it's not buildable...
(There was a tape change at this point.)
Resident: ...get your act together and answer the citizen's questions
intelligently and let them know what they have to do in order to explore
whether lots can be buildable or not.
Boa-rd of ,qdjustmen'ts and Appeals
November- 18, 1991 -.. Page 10
Kirsten Rojina: We were concerned and checked on it time and time again
and every timr~.-'. ,.,J~.~ were 'told you probably wouldn't have t.o worry about it
bec~,use it would need a variance.
Resident' But not once did someone say when was it platted and if it was
platted before whatever date the Zoning Ordinance went in, your back's up
against the wall. I don't know~ You people (;an make your vote. You need
to do what you need to do...we voiced our oplnlons and everything's been
said that needs to be sald.
Workman: Paul, was there ever a time when this lot couldn't have been
built on?
Krauss: The circumstances of this lot have been the same for 30-40 years.
Workman: Has there ever been an ordinance or zoning code that said?
Krauss: No. We did draft an ordinance that we...existlng lots. We got
the same...variance. It's not to say that we wouldn't.~ They'r'e not
likely to...
Watson: Property assessment and sewer assessment. You know it basically
makes it a little tough because we said we thought it was a lot when we
assessed a sewer assessment to it. If there is questlon about buildablllty
on these little tiny lots in various places, the City should take the
responsibility for not assessment sewer and water assessments to those
properties because when we do that, we are saying we think that piece of
property is bulldable. And if we belleve they're not, then that part was
our responsibility. The County can charge whatever taxes they want to.
Scott Nelson: How many years have they been assessed sewer and water.
Watson: 1976 is when sewer and water went in that area..
Scott Nelson: What's the value of those assessments?
Watson: At 'that time the value was approximately $6,000.00 for sewer and
water. 'It was a bicentennial sewer and water project. -That's how I always
kept track of when it went through.
Oohnsor,: I knew it was in the neighborhood of $6,000.00~
Watson: Yeah, because it was done the same 'time Greenwood Shores was.
Johnson: Okay, I need a motion. If it does go, Z would 1lYe to see it in
the motion that the access be on to Cree as the City P!anners have so
suggested.
Watson: On Cree? Is that how you see it?
aohnson: And it meets ali. city setbacks, etc.
Watson: And the City Engineer take a look at drainage but we'd better make
a mot_ion then and we can add this to a motLon. 1'11 make a motion to
Soard of Ad~u. stmen'l'.s a. nd Appeals
November 18, !??1 .... Page !1
approve a 5,957 squ. are foot lot area variance for the purpose of
constXLtcting a home at 750 Cree Drive with your motion about the access
being onto C'ree. No other variances to be allowed on this property and the
City Engineer should look at the drainage and make sure that, I agree with
him. Thr~r~e's ay'rows going eve~"y which direction. Let's make sure that
we're not going to c~eate a d~ainage p~oblem fo~ somebody else~ Anything
else?
Johnson: I'll second that motion. Any discussion?
Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
approve a 5,957 square foot lot area variance for the purpose of
constructing a home at 750 Cree Orive with the conditions that access be
onto Cree Or~ve, no other variances be allowed on this property, and that
the City Engineer review the proposed drainage plan. All voted £n favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Krauss: I want~ed to mention that if we receive an appeal from anybody by
the end of business Friday, ~e'll hold this over for City Council action. I
don't ~now that there's any chance the City Council will be interested in
buying it but the only way to know I guess is to ask. That's ~hat
put in for the Council on their agenda. We would see if there...
Matson: 3ust for the record, my school bus ~ent through Carver Beach
when ~ was a kid. Z've lived the entire 45 years Z've been on this earth
and X care very much about this and ~ care very much about small lots. Zf
there was somethir~g that could be done about this, ~ certainly would think
and ~'d have nothlng to be elected to.
~orkman: Paul, you're making that assumption onto the City Council were to
reverse thls decislon that we would be buying it?
Krauss: Well, I think the City Council ~ould have to, in our best judgment
if the City Councll reversed the decision, it should be wlth the 1dee that
you're going to have to buy it...
Matson: Because we are then taking it.
3ohnson' He could legally take us to Court too couldn't he?
Elliott Knetsch: That's how we would end up buying it. If the City
Council denied a variance and 01strict Court action was filed, then lt's
over. But if the applicant ls suing the City, then you have to get
direction from tile Council if they want us to litigate in Court
Court decision or try to negotiate something.
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 25 FOOT FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK AND A 15 FOOT
SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE, 220 FRONTIER COURT,
PETER DAHL.
Al-Jeff: This subdivision was created in 1942.~ Under today's standards
this lot would be unbuilda, ble. The applicant is requesting to add a garage
t:o an ex~sting home. Is requesting a 25 foot rear yard variance, i5 foot
side ye. rd ,.:ariance ,and 25 foot front yard ~arlance. We belleve that those
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
November 18, 1791 -- Page 12
setbacks are excessive. Staff prepared two alternatives. Alternative ~1
woul_d ,Ill_ow fo]' a multiple sized garage...and one mid sized car. It would
maintain the frontyard setback as well as the rear yard setback but would
encroach into the side Fa. rd seLback. The second alternative would allow
fox two full sized cars would encroach into the front yard setback an
addit~ona. 1 S lee't:. The third alternative allows for two full sized cars as
well as a storage area...rear yard setback but would encroach into the
front yard ,and the side yar'd. We are recommending Alternative ~I. The
ideal situation ~ould be for the applicant to pLtrchase an out}ot that ~as
cxeated for... This wou. ld allow the applicant to...wit'hout a variance.
Watson: When was that outlot created?
Al-Jeff: In 1987.
Watson: Now 'there's a planning mystery.
Al--,)aff: It was created specifically to allow access for that lot because
otherwise it was a landlocked lot and there was not street frontage...
XraLlSS: If I could touch a moment on the rationale on this thing. On the
previous case we made the point that an applicant is entitled to some use
of the property. ~n this case the applicant does have a home on it but the
home doesn't have a garage. Now nowhere in the ordinance does it say
specifically that an individual is entitled to a garage, be it 1 car, 2
cars, 3 cars but over time Z think a lot of us have come to think that
ltinneso'ta, a garage of some sort is pretty well a requirement for a single
famlly home. Therefore we were willing to look at some accommodation.
Hinlmum amount of accommodation to allow for a garage to be constructed on
the property. We believe that the applicant's request was excessive. That
it was much beyond '(he minimum needed to provide this with some garage
space. Therefore we recommended that Alternative ¢1 be adopted which
seemed to be the minimum required garage space. Zt may not fully meet the
applicant's needs but then at that polnt you've got a question of...build a
garage big enough to meet those needs. Z don't know. Zt's not a decision
we have to make so again Z think in my opinion, there's some entitlement to
a garage in Minnesota...entitled to as much of a garage.
Johnson: Is Hr. Oahl here?
Peter Oahl: Yes. You know in a way, if I can't get a garage that's big
enough to build, in a sense it's not worth building because I don't have a
place to park if I bulld a garage that won't hold at least 2 of my cars.
fly feeling was that the Alternative ¢3 would be a better solution which
gives me two full sized spaces and a 11ttle blt of storage whlch ls also a
problem with my site. ~t entailed tha~ I would get to build within 5 feet
of my' neighbor's fence, Mr. Marrior and wlthln hopefully 10 feet of the
front yard setback and also allow me to enter my house through the garage
which ls the 11ttle doorway there. The problem ls that I have 3 cars.
need some space. If I put a smaller garage up there, I'm going to be tight
for space whlch is already the case and I won't have any place to park my
third car.
Johnson: How close are we...go ahead.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
November 18, 1991 --. Page 13
Peter bahl: Okay. Z don't know what some of the other comments are. I
know I'lr. Warrior's concerned about the sight Lines and Z ~ou/d Like to keep
my neighbor happy also. E do have to live there and Z think he plans on
being t her~ for a while as I am.
Johnson: Sharmin, how far is this plan ~3 from the property line? From
ti'~(~ Front yard setback I gLteSS~
Worl<marl' Either way it's 5 feet.
Peter 9ahl: Zt would be approximately 10 feet.
l,Jo'rkman: How was ~3 different from ~i?
Peter Oahl: It goes out about 4 or 5 feet from the existing house
structure.
Watson: Yes, is it 4 feet or 5 feet? On Alternative ~3 in the front yard.
Al-Oaff: 5 'Feet. It would be...from the front yard lot line...
Workman: Okay, 10 feet. So on Alternative ~3, this dotted line here is
really for ~17
Peter Oahl: No, that's my proposal.
Watson: That's his proposal. That's what he wants and these are
alternatives.
Peter- Oahl: I agree my proposed plan is a little excessive.
Watson: This i.s kind of difficult because to grant someone a variance to
build a garage that's of no particula'r use doesn't make a a w'hole lot of
sense either, altern,.a, t ive ~3 made some sense to me except 4 feet out. It
basically went to the edge of his sidewalk ~dhich was 4 feet from the house.
From the main structure out. Made that part of the garage that exists now
useable. Other~,~lse the car's parked in front of the door and you're not
golng to get i.n and out of that one. I understand wh~t you said too about
the obligation to provlde thls but do Me have any obligation to suggest an
alternative that makes it useful?
Jay Warrior: ...just south of my garage...My name is Jay Warrior. You
might suspect I'm the person who lives on the other side of that proposed
garage. Sharmln if you could put up Attachment S5 for a second. That k~as
the one that showed the genera.l..
Watson: On the other- side of the fence?
Jay Warrior: Yes, on the other side of the fence. As you can see, if you
look at the layout. The house that we have ~hich is 7423 Frontier Trail is
bounded on t~,~o sides already by roads. Part of it is Frontier Court and
part of it is Frontier Trail itself. Again it's a situation where when we
looked at the lot sixes and the way the house was laid out, it didn't
appear as though there wasn't a possibility of an>' kind of major
Soa'rd of ,fldjus't~ments and Appeals
Novembcr 18, ].9?]. ~.-Page la
construction occLtr-ring. The bump out that yOLL can see on that diagram of
'~ho,. house} is .} 4. sa~ason po-rch. ,,'SS uae mentioned in my letter, ~hat's
something we use all the ti~e. That's the only side that ~e've got
privacy~ The fact ~ think that those lots really area unbuildable and it's
a rather peculiar situation ~ith the outlots ~dhich technically says the
boundary lines in terms of the variance should set the gaT-age back to
Alternative ~1 or ~,~orse~ In fact if you look at he detailed diagram ~hich
is Attachment ~il, you'll see that we're in a situation where this house and
garage and everything are right back up against the property !ine. The ~day
~ho cL~rrel~t house and garage are construct...~a, these ar'e Tlat roofs and a
flat roofline. None of the construction is visible from where we are and
I'm .just sensitive to the I,Jhole issue of putting up kJhat's going to be a
large garage. That was mx original concern. In terms of the need for a
g -o~, in I'linnesot i 'er, ~ don~'~ think anybody ~ould object but I~m
asking the 3 of you to try and balance two things. One is the fact that
that's about the only air or the only vie~g I have. It's the only side of
the house ~,~here I have anything kind of approaching the view that makes
. ~ I m
that sort of lot useable. The second issue reall>, was in terms of
various alternatives. The reason why if the Council was looking at one of
these alternatives, why I ~ould prefer to have Alternative 81 because it
moves the structure further back and we do have some trees~ Some gro~th
towards t'~t portion of tbs house. We don~t have any gro~,Jth or things in
the front portion so I'm much more concerned about an extension of any kind
of str'u, ctu. re out towards the front of the property rather than out towards
the back. I think a 2 car garage is certainly reasonable in that area.
Tha. t~s all that I have. I'ly house is certainly a lot larger~ It's been
there for a ~hile. Some of the others~ the newer houses which are much
larger have a 3 car garage but you've got a mix of 2 and 3 car garages. I
understand ~r. Bahl's concerns and the fact that he has 3 cars but in some
waxs cars are transient objects and a garage that's right up there bang
against a fence, against a 4 season porch and against a bedroom window, s is
not something that's going to go away. I'm interested in as far as
possible ir, trying to preserve the sight lines. I think that's a measure
of fairness that we need to consider. And the reason ~hx I'm concerned is
because from mx perspective where you are, as you're faced already with the
same kind of issue to unbuildable lots. ~ can understand if the variance
was a variance against rules and regulations and didn't affect anybody else
but in this particular case it does have a direct impact in teFms of major,
the most used portions of the house because the ~hole of that site~ of that
house is where the living room and the kitchen and the dining room and the
4 season porch and the master bedroom are. We don't use the other sides of
the house and I'd like you to take that into consideration when you think
about these things. As I said in my letter~ mx preference would be, if you
are going to go ahead with this variance, is to ask you to put in some,
essentially some measure, some qualifications that would allo~ LiS to
preseve the sight lines as much as possible. A couple of options, you
could do something with the fence. I could plant trees along that.
could try to limi( the slope of the roof line. These are things I'd like
to have you think about. Any one of these options in terms of considering
t:his ,~ariance 'requ ....
Watson: He isn't going to have a 3 car garage no matter what he does. He
~ou.]_d best case be able to get a 2 car garage.
8oa~'d of Adju. s'tmellts a. nd Appsa~s
November 10, 1971 .--. Page iS
Jay Mat'rioi'-; Fine. in 'that case I really think that what I would rather
do in the_ F..'.-~rspective of keeping as much of the usefulness of the
properties on both sides of the fence are concerned would be to look for
something th,:.~.t pushes that garage 'Furthe!' back rather than further fo'rt~ard~
That's wh>, ~ can }~ve ~}th the suggestLons from the PZannZng staff for
Alternative ~:J.. A].i I would ask is if it's possible to make some sort of
recommendations or guidelines about trying to preserve sight lines because
at the moment I really have nothing and from that it's going to go to a
whole, you knoo..,. 20 foot structure or 26 foot structure along the side.
Th;~nk you.
Johnson.'-. Thank you. The only thing is like you say, make him something
th,at~s buildable ,.~nuseab.l.e.
Peter Bah1: One other comment that I had was that my house is very old
and...what's there. Z knou~ Say's concerned about the sight lines but he
also bought after Z dld and nobody dld ever ask me what Z was plannlng to
do with my piece of property and from day one i t,~as planning on building
something~ i would like to...also affect his sight lines. This is stage
one...garage to have a place to park and stage two maybe dough the road
would be to build the exact same footprint of the_house and go up one
floor. But Z think ii:'d be, you know 'For someone to buy a house and not
think that something was golng to happen to the site would be a very
mistake considering ~ $400,000.00 house t~Jo doors away from mine and
$100,O00.O0...so ~ think that needs to be looked at. The neighborhood,
probably less than half value of all the other houses that ~re right next
door. So Z think that's something that needs to be looked at too.
Oohnson' If in the fLi. ture you ~,0ould put a second story, we'd have no
control over it as long as it meets city heights correct?
Say Mar'riot: Right. I would suggest then that~..from making a stronger
case for you to conslder some of these thlngs because...Z thlnk thls proves
the point that what .T. was concerned about in terms of what it does...
property values and the opportunity that ~ would have...people perceive the
value of my property.
Matson: ~n Alternative ~]., how big is the one side? The smaller side?
Hot,~ long is that?
A1-Jaff: 18 feet by i0.
Watson: 1.8 x
Peter Oahl: But you need to take away the...door so I have a 15 foot spot
and with a 15 foot car I'm going to have 'Lo struggle to...in Alternative l.
And that is a very small car.
bJorkman: Marrying about sight lines is starting to get me a tittle nervous
because no matter what we do, ~e're suggesting a 5 foot side yard here no
matter what we do. There's going to be something to do with sight line.
~f the applicant wants to build a two story house, he can. Z mean we can't
really, I mean if we're granting a variance, it 'really doesn't have
anythlng to do ~,~ith a slght 11ne does lt? Z mean that isn't really our
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
November ].8, 1991 .... Page 16
business at this point is it? t mean as long as it meets the height or can
we sa.>', no we're going to deny -the variance based on a neighbor's sight
line problem?
Krauss: Well, I defer some of this to the Clty Attorney but you can, to
the e;<tent 'th._$.t your variance requests impacts an adjoining property, ,you
c. an take that into consideration and if there's some ,~a,/ of modlfFlng the
request to addr,ass that,
Workman: But any kind of garage built here is going to impact.
bJatson: P, ecause he's not going to have a flat roof. He plans to have some
pitch 't.o the roof. ·
Johnson: I"ve got a question to the City Attorney. Say he would be
allowed to bu. ild a second s-tory on this house and meet city heights, we
have no control over that do we?
E1].iott Knetsch: I don't think...Paul would kno~ ordinances better than me
but basically he carl build without requesting a variance of meetlng all the
setbacks and building on the same footpad he ~ould. You can do that.
Jay Marrior: That's for the house though.
Elliott Kne'tsch' Right, for the house.
Johnson: I just wanted to make that point clear. It's actually in a sense
wlth the garage you're going to have the height thers regardless.
Elliott Knetsch: With a second story there's no variance involved. Here
with a garage, Tom was asking about the sight line issues~..impact on the
neighborhood ce'r'tainly and ho~ that affects the closest property and the
entire neighborhood.
Johnson: Mould ~e put limitations on the roof of the garage?
Elliott Knetsch: Yes.
Matson: IJe don't have any pictures of this garage. How steep the roof
will be. How it ~,~i]..1 .look. It's a little hard for me to determine ~hat
kind of impact it ~ill have until you have some concept.
Workman: I guess I knotg that I could make a decision based on that... I
don't like to tell people how to build their garage~ Yeah, we don't know
how high. ~ didn't know that u~as going to be, I guess I kne~,~ it ~,ould be a
factor but ~ didn't know that ~ could make a decision based on that.
Johnson: I didn't think ~e ~;et-e in the constructLon business.
Workman: So I guess, it sounds like all of this is appropriate to some
extent and if Z put, it s just the n~ight and we don't have any information
on t hat.
Hatson: Which alternative are you most inclined to?
Board o'[ l~djustmen'Ls and rlppeals
N~.~ueF,~ber- 18, 299.t .-Page l?
~lohns;on' Perso'nall); !~.11 ha'~,e 'to go against staff, I think o° kJould get
~,~o-r-[<man:'I thoL.tght they p'ropos~d i~
.Johnson: X [~no~,~ they proposed 1 but ~ say, I ~,~as ~ondering ~,~ith 3 you get.
k]atson: 4 feet out in front. ~ stood out there today and 4 feet rather
th,'~n 5. ~[ realiz~ th,~'L's J. foot k~e're ta.l.k.tng about here but stilJ..
3ohnsonx Yot~ mean talte-r'native 37
b~r~tson: Y~ah, bec~:tuse t. his alternative ! is 26 foot. This k~ould be 29.
Three foot d].fference.
k~or~<man: t~gair, ! don't see that as the question. I mean it is obviously.
[.Jatson: I,J~ll ].t has to do t,~ith hok~ much of a variance ~,Je're g~-anting.
Sar ~darrior: It does and the point I ~as trxing to make kJa8 at least
~ have some opportunitx if k,e move the garage to the r'ear of the property.
There are some 'trees over ~here and that pa'rticula'r area does have a
poss.tb.tl.i-LX. There's ~tJ. ready some 9ro~th.~. Z don't have any...
~.Jor~man: So k~hat are you saying? 37
[~atson: ~ltei-native ~3 t,~ith the 4 foot.
~,Jorl<man: ~dithout kno~.~].edge of the helght?
t,Jatson: t~e.tl, ~ don't knout. He does, when Z tatked to Nr. BahJ... today, he
does not actually have a plan. t~ drawn plan and ~ don't knok~
~ohnson: Table action on this one until.
kJatson: t'~axbe ~e should see something. Zs that appropriate?
bJorkman: Z think in f,~irness to the neighbor.
~datson: ~ g~_~ess ~'ve complained about that before. ~ 11ke
is that's going to be there and maybe in an instal'~c8 like this lee shou!d
approve the pla'n. Something that tells us something about ~hat itls k~e're
going to look at. ~ sti].l think the outJ. ot is a p!anning mystery because
t h~s guy has a deeded access.
Krauss: ~'f >,ou're going to tab.[e this though...seeing construction plans,
then it'd be usefm~l to give guldance as to ~hlch aJ. ternatlve you're looklng
Matson: kJe ~.11.
~Jo-r'kman' ~'11 make a motJ. on. t-~ motlon to, k~e11. ~de don't need a motion
but ~,~a're golng to rnak~.} a motion -Lo table but Z guess from u~hat
ta].l.<ed about, P~lternat~.ve ~3 seems most approp'riate for k~hat
and ,~ppeals
Page 18
So 1'1! aake a moil. on to table until ,,,!e can get 'further information on the
Peter Dab].: X can tel} you ho~ hZgh ~t ~¢J.]~} be. U~th a Z2:6 pitch on the
roo f...1.5 feet above grade.
~,~ .... on ~e~ someone says ~5 Teet~ ~ don~t
.~ohnson: X think you'd batter come in ~ith a print. ~s can tab].e this.
Peter DabS: ~ can do that ~f you te}} me ~h~ch p}an you guys are }ean~ng
tot,~ards and then ~ can.
ilorkman: 3.
3ohnson: Number 3. I'll give a second to your motion to table
Workman moved, 5ohnson seconded to table action on Variance Request for a
25 foot front and rear yard setback and a 15 foot side yard setback at 220
Frontier Court for Peter Oahl until the applicant supplies written plans.
~11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
Peter Oahl: Nok~ t4hen wi1.1 this get voted on again?
Krauss: December 9th.
Peter Dah].: Okay. ~s there a ~,~ay that ! bring in the plans next kCeek that
i'~ doesnt have to come back to the me~,.ing?
t. dat son: No.
Peter Bah1: Okay, it has to be December 9th? I can't do anything prior to
that date?
3ohnson: Can ~,~e close the public hearing? Actually ~de can on the ~¢hole
~ Io
thing, tge don t have to make a. o~cision at a meeting though-do we?
Watson: Yes, ~e have to have a public meeting.
Elliott Knetsch: Yes.
3ohnson: But we can close the public hearing.
Elliott Knetsch: You can close the testimoney and kol}r next meeting can
j~..tst be...
l,latson: I'll i~ake a motion to close the public hearing.
t4orkman: Second.
Watson moved, Workman seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing cas closed.
Soa~d of Adju. s'Lmer, ts and ,,.~,ppeals
November la, 1971 ~-, P~-}ge 19
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Johnson: ~.'ve got a question.
bJ,..a, tson: '¢e,~h, L,.! e ' ?- ,'.} not suFe a. boL~,t.
Johnson: On the last part here on the variance. Me all voted to deny
MaSson: Yeah~ d~d you vo~e ~o approve it? l~ says you voted ~o approve
and ~,~e ~,~eren~t sure ~het. hertha, t uas correct..
Morkm~n: Z don't believe ~ did,
t,~,~tson: Z th./r~k kt ~,~s ~ unanimous deni~l.
Mor}<man' Right.
Watson: go you u~nt to me, Ye a motion ta approve the N1nutes as amended?
b~orkman:
~ohnson: I'll second that. B1d you get that one Sharmln? On that one
over at Camp Tanadoon~}. That u~s a unanimous vote to deny
Morkm~n~ It ~,.~as 3.-..0.
gatson moved, 3ohnson seconded to approve the Hlnutes of the Chanhassen
Zoning Board of Adjustments an~ ~ppeals as amended. ~11 voted in favor and
the motion carried.
~atson moved, gorkman seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~11. voted in favor
and the motlon carrled. The ~eeting uas adjourned at 1:40
Submitted by paul
Plannlng gkrector
Prepared by N~nn Opheim