Loading...
1997 11 09CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING N~VEMBER 5, 1997 C_aairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist S~I'AFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner II AiREQUEST FOR A 34 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND S~TBACK AND 7 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE 25 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY I{OME, STEPHEN LONGMAN, 11491 LANDING ROAD, EDEN PRAIRIE AND GO'ON AND CASEY ALEXANDER, 8518 CARDIFF LANE, EDEN PRAIRIE. CYnthia Kirchoffpresented the staff report on this item. Stephen Longman, the contractor, stated that this proposal combines two, 50 foot lots, one of which has a shoreland variance, which has since expired. He mentioned that in the cities of Minnetonka and Orono a sight line variance is allowable. He stated that the maple tree is important to the owners and that, according to the landscape contractor, it can be saved. Mr. Longrnan indicated that he and the owners are willing to compromise for the home placement and that he believes that this is a reasonable home plan with a 3 stall garage found on most new homes. Cmrdon Alexander stated that he would like to see a solution that pleases all. He mentioned that he disagrees that the maple tree has little or no value, however, he stated he is not an expert in trees. Mike Domke, 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard, stated that he lives adjacent to the proposal. He indicated that the home is nice and that it will look good in the neighborhood, however, he is concerned how the drainage and the retaining wall will affect his property. Linda Jansen, 240 Eastwood Court, stated that this proposal will create dramatic drainage changes. She stated that on her property four oak trees were lost because of construction. She explained that she cautions making a decision that will affect the lake but save a tree. Ms. Jansen expressed concern over locating a large home close to the lake without screening. She stated that the wildlife and vegetation should be protected. Ms. Jansen explained that locating the house further from the lake will still enable a house to be built as other one level homes exist on the adjacent properties. Longman stated that they are willing to work with the neighbor with the retaining walls. B, ,ard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes N ~vember 5, 1997 · Pa' e 2 St~ve Berquist stated that he tends to look at variances as why not let them take place rather than wl~y should they take place. He believes that owners should be able to do what they want with their property within reason, but he does not see himself voting in favor of this variance. He i · ex]plmned that he realizes that variances have been granted on Lake Riley Boulevard, however, the vision of the area is important because the lake must be protected. He questioned why the dock is only 12 feet by 9 feet on a 4,500 sq. ft. home Alexander stated that they have a large deck on their current home and they do not use it. BCrquist questioned if they had a proposal for a future deck. L0ngman stated that the Board can require that the deck not be permitted to be enlarged in the future. B~rquist stated that he is not aware of the impact on the surrounding trees. He questioned if both lots 30 and 31 were included on the variance approved in 1996. Kirchoff responded that only lot 30 had the variance approved. C, rol Watson indicated that she would like to see the house fit in the buidable area and impervious surface reduced because the area is large enough for a home. Alexander stated that the impervious surface will be cut by the relocation of the house. Watson questioned what the variance will be if the house is relocated and what are the major problems. Kirehoff responded that a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback and a 2 percent variance from the 25 percent maximum impervious surface requirement will be required if the house is relocated to the 30 foot front yard setback at Lake Riley Boulevard. Watson asked if the drainage could be placed as a condition of approval. Sharmin A1-Jaff explained that the natural drainage way needs to be maintained. Willard Johnson stated that he would like to see the house located in the setbacks and maintain a 25 percent impervious surface coverage. Watson stated that she could live with the 7 foot variance from the shoreland setback and the 2 percent variance from the 25 percent imperViOus surface reqUirement. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes N~vember 5, 1997 Pa~e 3 D~imke stated that he reviewed the plans. He believes that requiting the home to be located at the 3~ foot setback would negatively affect his lot by entrapping his backyard and rerouting the water fldw. He indicated that he has plans to remove his garage and attach it to his house because it is cu~?ently an unsafe situation. Joimson questioned if he has plans to attach the garage to the home. D~rnke indicated that he did. He believes that the houses should line up and be consistent with thc neighborhood because it would look better rather then placing them in a zigzag fashion. B~rquist stated that moving the house to 30 foot setback would kill the tree. He questioned what are the benefits to the situation. Kirchoff stated that runoff into the lake would be decreased. johnson stated that the house should be placed within the buildable area. BCrquist stated that he would like to compromise. L°ngrnan stated that the lot is narrow and has a steep slope. He mentioned that they did not want toiredesign the home again. Mr. Longrnan believes that this is a difficult site to design a home for and that they should have a reasonable use of the land like the neighbors. : Johnson stated that they applicant does have reasonable use of the land and that the house is too large for the property. R~0n Ytzen, 6227 Lake Riley Boulevard, stated that he is a neighbor and although the home is nice, it is too large for the lot. He stated that the natural state and the green area should be rng~ intained around the lake. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to close the public hearing. BCrquist indicated that he is reluctant to approve the requested variance, however, he would be w~ lling to approve a 6 or 7 foot variance with the requirement that the property only have 23 percent impervious surface to mitigate the consequences of the setback variance. johnson stated that he believes that the houSe ShOuld stay in the boundaries. A!-Jaff stated that the 2 percent impervious surface coverage was an estimate for the staff revised site plan. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes November 5, 1997 P~ge 4 B!erquist moved, Watson seconded the motiOn to deny the 34 foot variance from shoreland setback and the 7 percent variance from the 25 percent imperVious surface requirement but approved a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback with the condition that only 23 p~rcent of the lot be covered with a hard surface to mitigate the consequences of the shoreland s~tback for the construction of a single family home with the following conditions' The property owner shall abandon the existing well pursuant to the Minnesota Department of Health and connect the new dwelling to city water. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion contrOl Plan with 2-foot contours shall be submitted at time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. The existing driveway shall be removed and restored with sod. No additional impervious surface shall be permitted to access the lower garage on the southerly side of the house. The applicant must obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures on Lots 30 and 31. Type llI erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation is restored. The natural drainageway shall be maintained on the site. kll voted in favor and the motion carded. A~PpROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the B. ~ard of Adjustments and Appeals meeting dated September 23, 1997. All voted in favor and tile motion carried JOhnson moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carded. The meeting was adjoumed at 7:00 p.m. Piepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I