Loading...
1997 07 08?HANHASSEN BOARD OF 3,DJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS i tEGULAR MEETING ~-ULY 8, 1997 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD $,ETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL, ROBERT AND LAURA EVANS, .331 DEERFOOT TRAIL Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the staff report. Steve Berquist asked if the existing home was setback 30 feet from the property line abutting Lake Riley Boulevard. Kirchoff stated that the house was 30 feet from the property line. Berquist asked if the applicant could put a patio in the same location. Kirchoff responded that a patio would be allowed to encroach 5 feet into the setback. Robert Evans stated that the proposal has been drastically revised to lessen the variance request. Berquist asked for the definition of a structure. ICrchoff recited the definition of structure from Section 20 of the Code as anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to orpositioned on land, w/aether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to: building& fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels, hard surface par/o'ng areas, boardwalks, playground e~uipment, concrete slabs. CarOl Watson questioned why the applicant had a 20 foot front yard setback on Deerfoot Trail ar, d a 30 foot front yard setback on Lake Riley Boulevard. K'rchoff stated that the 20 foot was permitted because it is in a planned unit development and a reduced setback would increase the distance the residence is from Lake Riley Boulevard. The 30 foot setback intended to compensate for the 20 foot setback. Evans stated that if they truly have two front yards, then why do they not have a 20 foot setback on: Lake Riley Boulevard. He stated that the setbacks are inconsistent. Mr. Evans mentioned that Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes ~uly 8, 1997 P, age 2 ke was not the original owner of the house and that the developer decided to make the lot ~maller. He explained that the 30 foot setback on Lake Riley Boulevard created a hardship for 15~em and that they are only 6 out of 17,000 homes in Chanhassen with two front yards. Ytiatson stated that she has two front yards because she lives on a comer. Willard Johnson said that the developer is responsible for the lot size and setbacks, not the City. Evans stated that they have a hardship because the 30 foot setback is limiting what they can do in £~eir backyard. 13erquist asked how long the applicant has lived in the home. Evans replied four years. : E, erquist questioned if the applicant would be permitted to install landscaping in the rear yard. KirChoff responded that it would be permitted as long as it is not located in the right-of-way. Evans stated that the landscaping and fencing around the pool is going to make the yard look Wonderful. l~erquist stated that he believes that it will, but that is not the criteria that they utilize to grant a variance. Evans replied that Mark Senn indicated that a variance would not be an issue if the neighbors do not object. He stated that all 7 of their neighbors who could potentially see the pool signed a petition in favor of the proposal. Mr. Evans stated that the pool is only encroaching 5 feet, not 10 ao, staff has stated. Watson stated that a patio can encroach five feet so the variance would be really only five feet because a patio is similar to a pool. Kirchoff stated that the proposal submitted to staff by Valley Pools required a 10 foot variance. EVans stated that the decking on the pool will only be 3 feet. Berquist indicated that he believes that property owners should have the right to construct what tkey want as long as the rules are followed as these standards took many years to develop. The ri, les are protecting all interests. He stated that the neighbors do not have issues with the pool 3oard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes i'uly 8, 1997 ?age 3 ~_nd that Lake Riley Boulevard serves a finite number of people. The rules are flexible for .~nprovements. Evans mentioned that the neighbors will not see the pool. Berquist stated that the landscaping will look good. He also explained that older suburbs have ~laxed standards for mature neighborhoods. Evans stated that the City will always have applications for variances. Watson stated that the 20 and 30 foot setback do not make sense. She stated that a patio can oncroach 5 feet. Jotmson stated that he does not like the idea of the encroachment and allowing a structure closer to the street. He asked if they could reduce the size of the pool. tivans stated that they could not have a diving board. Eerquist stated that he does not like the idea of a side yard variance. He mentioned that the street With the 20 foot setback serves 12 residences and the street with the 30 foot setback serves eight l'b~mes. Evans stated that their hardship is that they have a 20 foot front yard setback on Deerfoot Trail arid a 30 front yard setback on Lake Riley Boulevard. '¢ratson stated that they do not have a hardship as a home with a garage exists on the lot. V'atson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to approve the variance from the front yard setback with the conditions outlined in the staff report. The motioned carded with a vote of 3 to 0. A~KEQUEST FOR A 17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND S~TBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, WILLIAM AND JOANNE LAMBRECHT, 6990 UTICA LANE. · I<2'rchoff presented the staff report. Bcrquist questioned if the Department of Natural Resources has the authority to reverse a decision for a variance. K:rchoff indicated that the DNR could reverse a decision. i;_~oard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes .~uly 8, 1997 P. age 4 .Berquist questioned if a patio could be constructed in the same location without a variance. l~irchoff responded that it would also require a variance. Elerquist stated that he was not aware that a permit was needed to replace a deck. J>anne Lambrecht stated that a City inspector indicated that it is reasonable to have access to the lake from their deck. [lerquist responded that the inspection department does not enforce planning issues. He indicated that he agrees with the inspector and that they are not encroaching any farther than the e~isting deck. Joanne Lambrecht stated that they need a landing for their deck. t~erquist asked how long the applicants have lived in their home. ]~ill Lambrecht replied that they have lived in the home for 5 years. Johnson stated that he believes that they should be able to replace the existing deck but has an is sue with adding to the nonconformity of the structure. Rick Gunderson stated that most people would not obtain a permit for a deck replacement, but tkat is not how he does business. He said that it will not encroach any farther than the existing deck. Mr. Gunderson mentioned that there is only one access from the main level of the home. V~atson stated that she is their neighbor and does not have any objections to the additional deck because it is not closer to the lake and it is not impervious surface. Johnson asked if anyone in the audience had comments. V'atson moved, with the condition that erosion control fencing be placed until the ground is revegetated, Johnson seconded the motion to approve a variance from the shoreland setback with the above condition. The motion carded with a vote of 3 to 0. C.~airman Johnson closed the public hearing. A.?PROVAL OF MINUTES' Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated June 17, 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried. i~loard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes july 8, 1997 ?age 5 Watson moved, Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion Carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Plmmer I