Loading...
1997 07 22CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS RI~GULAR MEETING JI~ILY 22, 1997 C~airman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. M~, MBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirehoff, Planner I AiREQUEST FOR A 7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 60 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK, TOM GOULETTE (CONTRACTOR) AND JONATHON TURNER, 2051 BOULDER ROAD Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the staff report. Tom Goulette stated that the proposed deck will not damage the environment but denying the variance will damage the deck and home. The patio door will have to be removed and the home remodeled at a considerable expense. Steve Berquist asked why the wetland was defined as a natural or a Type A. He questioned the impact that the railroad tracks have on the wetland. Kirchoff responded that the wetland was defined as such by the Department of the Interior. She also stated that a natural wetland is defined in the City Code. Berquist mentioned that an outlet drain was located in the wetland. Kirchoff stated that this drain will allow water to be drained out of the wetland if the water level reaches a level which may threaten the residence. Berquist asked how 30 inch caliper trees can grow in this wetland. He stated that if it was a wetland, trees would not survive. He inquired if the Department of the Interior defined this wetland as a Type A. Kirchoff confirmed that the wetland was deemed as so by the federal government. Berquist stated that the residence was placed at the 25 foot setback. He questioned if the builder explained the impacts the wetland setback and the tree conservation easement have on this property. Jonathon Turner acknowledged that they were aware of the setback, however, constructing the home 20 feet from the front property line would have made the home protrude further than the adjacent homes. B*ard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes July 22, 1997 Pa~ge 2 BCrquist stated that the home setback appeared to be consistent with the adjacent properties. Turner stated that their home is 5 to 10 feet closer to Boulder Road than the neighboring properties. He explained that their protruding home looks unsightly. BCrquist questioned if the builder informed them that a deck could be built and a wetland exists ori this property. Turner explained that the builder said a deck could be built. Carol Watson stated that the wetland was much drier last week. Turner stated that he the neighbors have no objections over the deck. Bcrquist asked if the City would define the wetland as a Type A. He stated that he does not believe the deck will jeopardize the wetland. Kjrchoff indicated that the City does regard it as a Type A or natural wetland. She also stated tlmt the development was done as a subdivision not as a planned unit development. Therefore, the 10 foot front yard variances were only offered on those properties with tree conservation easements. Rob Poston, 2037 Boulder Road, explained that their home encroaches further into their rear yard tlmn the proposed deck. He stated that it is not a wetland because cattails and ducks were not present nor does it look like a wetland. He also mentioned that he does not like to look at an unfinished house. Bcrquist stated that a berm was placed between the subject lot and the neighboring lot. He mentioned that if the wetland is indeed natural a berm should not be needed to define it. Poston stated that Hans Hagen drained the wetland in his rear yard. He explained that the developer was not successful in draining 2051 Boulder Road because the rear yard is flooded. WatSon expressed concern over the definition of a wetland and the possibility that the developer did not explain the setback on this property. Turner stated that they have done everything to keep the wetland pure and that they want to enjoy their property. B~)ard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes J~y 22, 1997 P~ige 3 BCrquist explained that a hardship exists because of the wetland setback and the tree ~ . c0~nservanon easement and he believes that allowing the deck to be built will not jeopardize the original intention of the setback. B~rquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to approve a variance from the wetland setback for thee construction of a deck. Johnson opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 1. Jqhnson explained that the applicant may appeal this decision to the City Council within four days. TUrner questioned why Mr. Johnson opposed the variance. Johnson responded that he wants to protect the wetland and maintain the setback. Turner expressed concern over the $1,000.00 needed to remodel if the variance is not approved. Watson mentioned that anything less than a 12 foot deck is useless. Turner stated that the deck will not disturb the wetland. Berquist questioned why the wetland was delineated. He explained that if they deny this variance the Board is missing the point. That is, they look at the situation of each variance. Turner stated that other properties in this subdivision have a greater portion of a wetland and have built closer to it than the proposed deck. Watson moved, Johnson seconded the motion to close the public heating. A4PPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated July 8, 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I