Loading...
3 Approval of Minutes ~E:[ANHASSEN BOARD OF ~I],JUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS REGULAR MEETING ~iUNE 17, 1997 ~ ~hairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. I~IE, MBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist ~ : ~ffr~FF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner II and Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I ;- ~ REQUEST FOR AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD ~,~E~BACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL, ROBERT AND LAURA EVANS, J ~y~t~ thia Kirchoff presented the staff report. ~obert Evans questioned why the yard abutting Lake Riley Boulevard is a front yard rather than a r{ar yard because it is used as a back yard. He. stated that several variances have been granted on I.~a~ l<[e Riley Boulevard. Mr. Evans indicated that the pool will be engineered, the landscaping will he professionally done and that the project will exceed City Code requirements. He also stated tliai he would like to construct a pool so that his daughter will have a safe place to play. As to n~easurements of setbacks, he indicated that through his experience in the asphalt business, the s~tback is measured from the center of the road. ~ ' ~eVe Berquist asked why the property has two front yards. He asked if the original plat showed ~e two front yards. ~l-iaff responded that the yard is considered to be front yard'because it abuts a public street. C~r01 Watson stated the she has two front yards on her property because it is a comer lot. l~er.quist asked if pools can be constructed in the 30 foot rear yard setback. S~harrrnin A1-Jaff responded that based on square footage, accessory structures must maintain a certain setback in the rear yard. · Be_ r ~quist questioned if the pool would be permitted in a rear yard and if the setbacks were s~e~ified in the original plat. A!-Jaff confirmed that a pool could be constructed in the rear yard and that the 20 foot setback on I~ee~foot Trail and 30 foot setback on Lake Riley Boulevard were shown on the plat. E~Vans stated he was told the only thing he can construct in this yard is a driveway. He q~le~tioned why he can construct a driveway and not a pool. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 17, 1997 Page 2 A1-Jaff indicated that the driveway may exceed the 25 percent hard surface coverage requirement. She said that the property already has access. Ms. Al-Jarl stated that a reasonable use does exist on the property and that a hardship must be proved for a variance to be granted. Berquist stated that staff interprets the Code. He commented that a variance is granted because a hardship is demonstrated. Evans stated that they would just like to improve their property. Berquist stated that he appreciates the fact that the applicant wants to improve the property, however, the original developer maximized the property and constrained their ability to construct a structure in that yard. He indicated that he would like the pool to work without approving a variance. Al-Jarl stated that staff had not reviewed the proposal that the applicant had presented at the meeting. She explained that the applicant had proposed a kidney-shaped pool. The staff report and the recommendation was based upon what was submitted to the City. Evans stated that they intended on constructing a rectangular-shaped pool, not a kidney-shaped. Kirchoff stated that she spoke with Becky at Valley Pools and that alternative locations were investigated, however, all would require a variance. Watson stated that the issue is the lot is less than 15,000 sq. ft. She stated that it is the responsibility of the owner to determine if a structure can be built prior to purchase. Berquist stated that he is unsure if he would be willing to grant a variance and that he is uncertain as to what the applicant is requesting. He stated that the 1% variance from the lot coverage requirement does not concern him, but the variance to the setback does. He commented that he understands the desire but would like to see a pool plan that is less extensive. Evans explained that they cannot use the back yard. Watson stated that staff did not receive the information that the applicant presented at the meeting and that staff is at a disadvantage since they have not seen the revised plan. She stated that she would like to table this application so that the applicant may work with staff regarding the size and the location of a pool. Berquist indicated that he does not want to create a false hope for the applicant by tabling this request. l~oard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes J~ne 17, 1997 l~hge 3 ~vans stated that they only need one variance and that several properties along Lake Riley ~otilevard have received variances. ~atson responded that some of the homes on Lake Riley Boulevard have received variances b~, cause the lots were unbuildable without it. She stated that not being able to build a single fr~mily home is a hardship. 1~, rquist stated that many of the homes on Lake Riley Boulevard were constructed prior to the l~d being platted and predate the ordinance. EC, ans asked why the City needs 30 feet of his property. B{e.~ rquist stated that the applicant should submit a proposal that may work. Watson asked if the City could waive the $75.00 fee. B{e,~ rquist stated that the item should be tabled so that staff and the applicant may work on an alternative design. Watson moved, Berquist seconded the motion to table the variance application. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. ALJaff informed the Board that the item needs to be voted on by September 30, 1997. JOhnson asked if the $75.00 application fee could be waived for the applicant. At-J, aff responded that she would investigate if the fee could be waived. ER~ OUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK WITHIN THE 75 FOOT Al~-laff presented the staff report. Roger Stech stated that the former owner was granted a variance in 1990, however, the deck was n~ver constructed. BCrquist asked if the deck will be 38 feet from the wetland. S~ch stated that the deck will not protrude past the boulder retaining wall. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes June 17, 1997 Page 4 A1-Jaff commented that this home is closer than any of the neighbor's decks to the wetland. She stated that the ordinance has been amended to reduce the setback to 40 feet and that the wetland will not be impacted. Berquist asked how you can tell the wetland will not be affected. Al-Jarl responded that the setback depends on the type of wetland and that the buffer offers protection. Watson asked if the buffer was natural protection. Berquist asked if the variance would be for 2 feet from the current wetland setback. Johnson stated that this application requested a lesser variance than that in 1990. Berquist asked why the deck is not brought into compliance with the code. Stech stated that the deck size is minimum for a round table chairs. Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to approve the variance from the wetland with conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated May 20, 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Berquist moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Prepared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff Planner I CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPPEALS ~GULAR MEETING ,qJLy 8, 1007 hairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ll~I, EMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Steve Berquist 1 .~qTAFF 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, 3~1, DEERFOOT TRAIL Qynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report. ~eve Berquist asked if the existing home was setback 30 feet from the property line abutting lsa~he Riley Boulevard. I{irchoff stated that the house was 30 feet from the property line. Berquist asked if the applicant could put a patio in the same location. I~.[~'rchoff responded that a patio would be allowed to encroach 5 feet into the setback. I~obert Evans stated that the proposal has been drastically revised to lessen the variance request. I!erquist asked for the definition of a structure. ~irChoff recited the definition of structure from Section 20 of the Code as anything ~r!anufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, u&ether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equcment, concrete slabs. C ~rol Watson questioned why the applicant had a 20 foot front yard setback on Deerfoot Trail aJ ~d~a 30 foot front yard setback on Lake Riley Boulevard. I~ irChoff 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 f0o~ setback intended to compensate for the 20 foot setback. · E~Vans stated that if they truly have two front yards, then why do they not have a 20 foot setback ora Lake Riley Boulevard. He stated that the setbacks are inconsistent. Mr. Evans mentioned that Bpard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes J[ly 8, 1997 P~ge 2 h;, was not the original owner of the house and that the developer decided to make the lot s~naller. He explained that the 30 foot setback on Lake Riley Boulevard created a hardship for t~em and that they are only 6 out of 17,000 homes in Chanhassen with two front yards. Watson 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. , E~ans stated that they have a hardship because the 30 foot setback is limiting what they can do in their backyard. B{erquist asked how long the applicant has lived in the home. [ E~ans replied four years. B~e~ rquist questioned if the applicant would be permitted to install landscaping in the rear yard. ~rchoff 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 w°~!derful. Berquist stated that he believes that it will, but that is not the criteria that they utilize to grant a f . varmnce. 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 aa staff has stated. Vl/a~son 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. Kj.~'rchoff stated that the proposal submitted to staff by Valley Pools required a 10 foot variance. E~/ans 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 they want as long as the roles are followed as these standards took many years to develop. The niles are protecting all interests. He stated that the neighbors do not have issues with the pool · : $oard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes J~nly 8, 1997 Page 3 ~nd that Lake Riley Boulevard serves a finite number of people. The roles are flexible for i?provements. ~vans mentioned that the neighbors will not see the pool. ? l~erquist stated that the landscaping will look good. He also explained that older suburbs have r}laxed standards for mature neighborhoods. · ~vans stated that the City will always have applications for variances. 1 Watson stated that the 20 and 30 foot setback do not make sense. She stated that a patio can ehcroach 5 feet. JOhnson stated that he does not like the idea of the encroachment and allowing a structure closer t~ the street. He asked if they could reduce the size of the pool. ~wans stated that they could not have a diving board. Fierquist stated that he does not like the idea of a side yard variance. He mentioned that the street ~ith the 20 foot setback serves 12 residences and the street with the 30 foot setback serves eight h~mes. Ejv~ ans stated that their hardship is that they have a 20 foot front yard setback on Deerfoot Trail a3da 30 front yard setback on Lake Riley Boulevard. Watson stated that they do not have a hardship as a home with a garage exists on the lot. Watson 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 p~ R~EOUEST FOR A 17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND S~TBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, WILLIAM AND JOANNE LAMBRECHT, 6990 L~i~CA LANE. ~rchoff presented the staff report. Berquist 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. ,, /~ oard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes J~lY 8, 1997 l~a~ ge 4 Eierquist questioned if a patio could be constructed in the same location without a variance. Iiirchoff responded that it would also require a variance. ~ , ]~erqulst 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 l~ke from their deck. lJ~erquist responded that the inspection department does not enforce planning issues. He ir-dicated that he agrees with the inspector and that they are not encroaching any farther than the :: eiisting deck. J~anne Lambrecht stated that they need a landing for their deck. i 1 P~e~ rquist asked how long the applicants have lived in their home. Bill Lambrecht replied that they have lived in the home for 5 years. J~hnson stated that he believes that they should be able to replace the existing deck but has an i~ue with adding to the nonconformity of the structure. Rick Gunderson stated that most people would not obtain a permit for a deck replacement, but tl~at is not how he does business. He said that it will not encroach any farther than the existing d{ck. 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 b{cause it is not closer to the lake and it is not impervious surface. Jcihnson asked if anyone in the audience had comments. ~ , [ VCatSon moved, with the condition that erosion control fencing be placed until the ground is rqvogetated, Johnson seconded the motion to approve a variance from the shoreland setback with the.' above condition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing. API~ROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the minutes of the B.0ard of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting dated June 17, 1997. All voted in favor and the rna. tion carried. Bbm'd of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes Jl~ly 8, 1997 Phge 5 ~atson moved, Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6'55 p.m. l~epared and Submitted by Cynthia Kirchoff l~lanner I