Loading...
1996 06 10CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAI~ REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Mark Senn STAFF PRF~ENT: John Rask, Planner I $ FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 960 LAKE SUSAN DRIV~ DAVE BLOOMOUIST. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Mr. Bloomquist, do you want to address this? State your name and if you have any comments you want to make to the Board. Dave Bloomquist: Dave Bloomquist. The reason for the addition on the garage...The setback .... actually 21 feet on the other side of the house...trying to get a variance so that I'm consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. The house, to the center of the lot where there's the most...Any questions? Johnson: Not at this time? Anybody else from the neighborhood wish to speak? Dave Pierre: Yeah, I would. Johnson: State your name please. Dave Pierre: My name is Dave Pierre and I live across the street from Dave. And I guess from my perspective, I have no problem with it. I think in fact it would probably be a little more consistent with the neighborhood since the houses on the right hand side, he has a three car garage. And you know, as they say, it certainly wouldn't deter from the neighborhood so I would support it. Bruce Long: Bruce Long... I'm against this proposal because when Mr. Bloomquist bought the house as it is with a 2 car garage. It states in the covenants of our development that there should be no other buildings like sheds or anything. Mr Bloomquist currently has a shed... storing of his additional property. It's unfortunate that the house was built 21 feet on the other side but that's how it was built and Mr. Bloomquist entered into that agreement when he bought the house. I'm sure, you know he has a two car garage. He probably has a bigger house than I do. There are homes in that development, when the Third Addition was built... 10 feet away from the property with 3 car garages. So the possibility of building a house on Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 that property with a 2 car garage home on it, it could have been a good possibility that if the builder, whoever that was, had ample time and plenty of opportunity to put a house in there with a 3 car garage. The problem that also arises here that Mr. Bloomquist is granted the opportunity to build in the 10 foot area, then the 5 foot easement, things are going to get pretty tight when the utility company has to get in there with telephone... Also, he's in kind of a unique situation. His side property backs up into a neighbor's back yard, which kind of gives the effect of more open space. But if he's allowed to do that, then the rest of the neighborhood is wanting to build in their 5 foot, 10 foot easements as well. So you get more of a problem with that... Not that there's anything wrong with that but I guess...so I've got to say that Mr. Bloomquist, there are other homes in that development. Maybe not right now for sale with 3 car garages...open up the possibility for anybody to start building sheds on the other side of the property and 3 car garages. If you have a 2 car garage right now...I have the opportunity to build a 4 car garage... The houses are too close together and the sheds and 4-5 car garages, depending on the property that you have, it's going to take away from the neighborhood and I suggest that this 10 foot easement where it is. That's it. Johnson: Thank you. Anybody else? Audience: Sir, what's your name again, I'm sorry. Bruce Long: It's Bruce Long. Audience: And what's your address? Bruce Long: It's 990 Lake Susan Drive. My home was built, some of those large homes that have a 3 car garage. Johnson: Anyone else wish to address it? Do you wish to address this? Ty Lac: My name is Ty Lac and I live right there. I don't really have a lot of problem with this. I want to make sure everybody has done their homework before it gets approved, if it really gets approved. Some of the concerns about how our community image. My husband is working tonight so he put me in charge but, the drainage may be an issue and...projects that are not. We do have a problem there so I wouldn't want to make it worse. And the other problem that I have is, their fireplace sits right on that side of the house, which I would guess is a pretty common place to have a fire, if there were to be a fire. And so it may be difficult to get through, to get a fire truck through. And I know on the other side you can but my concern would be that the fence would have to come down in order to get to an area back there. But other than that, I mean I don't, I'm not saying I don't approve of it. I just want to make sure that everybody can make me feel confident that it's a good decision. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Johnson: You're the house to the left as you face it? Ty Lac: Yes. I look at it. Watson: I saw that drainage water. Johnson: Thank you ma'am. Anybody else wish to address this? Mark, do you want to go first? Or Carol, either one of you. Go ahead Mark. Senn: I'm a little confused on exactly what, why are we ending up with a 5 foot variance? Rask: Right now the current home is about 17 1/2 feet from the property line so adding a third stall, going into. Senn: ...Okay. Rask: Yeah, it's certainly the closest point. It does widen out as it gets closer to the street. Senn: Okay, so really what it is, at that point then it's really, what you're assuming then is you're assuming what the 12 foot...construction then? Rask: Yes, correct. Watson: So that allows for the door and... Johnson: Plus you're overhang hanging over. Senn: I don't know, when I went out and looked at it, you know if he wants the storage space...put it on the other side of the house. He doesn't have to ask us one way or the other. I don't like that solution because you're going to look at it and say that it makes a lot more sense...on the other side so I guess I hear that a little bit...space they can go there. And so that bothers me and looking effectively at kind of the rest of the neighborhood, you kind of stand back...right in front of the house and go back and look, you know it really... Watson: We had a precedent up there on Ridge Road. That new house up there has a garage on the side. Senn: I know... Watson: It's really odd looking too. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Senn: I know. Personally, that's what you start thinking about... Watson: Actually it's a very expensive home. It proves the point. Senn: What I was looking at when I was out there, and I talked with the applicant a little bit about this. We're basically taking the outer wall, or the plan is to take the outer wall out of the garage and put a better, a cluster basically and just expanding the current garage up there. To do that, it doesn't need to be 12 feet. In fact if you look at the way their piers are set up, you wouldn't want it to be 12 feet because they would start the door frame off of the existing pier. Because that way there are piers all across the front of the house would match. Watson: How much do you catch up then by doing that? Senn: You catch up a little over 2 feet, okay. So what happens is, if you do that, now we're down to inches in terms of the variance. Because as soon as you pick up that 2 feet, and you're talking about building the garage out not 12 feet but 10 feet out, we're looking at the front comer being less than, I think 6 inches variance and the back comer being, I think it was like a foot and a half on a variance. Rask: Yeah, he's at 17 1/2 now so if you could shave 2 more. Senn: So that'd be 18, 19 1/2 so I mean he's a half foot off basically, right? Rask: He's at 17 now so if he came out 10 feet, he would have 7 1/2 feet from the property line. The current garage is 17 1/2. Senn: Okay, so you've got 2 1/2 from the back comer. You have 6 inches in the front. Rask: And 6 inches in the front. Senn: Okay, 6 inches in the front comer. 2 1/2 in the back comer. Which would still leave you basically, then what? 7 1/2 feet from the property line basically to get around the house. Johnson: But the other home, the others are still at 10 feet? Senn: No, I understand what you're saying Willard but I'm just saying, I was out there saying how do you weigh this versus that and to me, what I found...weighing it in fact this way to see if there was a way to make...and so we don't have a problem with the drainage. We don't have the problems with getting around the house. But again, the other solution is very obvious. You know we've talked about it time and time again and people are starting to do it Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 that way and again, to me that would, I think we'd have a lot of irritated people in the neighborhood that way...a mess but that's just my opinion. Watson: Well and we don't want all the additional accesses if they need to connect that to the street. Senn: That's right. Which they have every right to do again. Watson: Well, it makes sense. I mean unless they do just want it for storage and don't need to drive a vehicle. Senn: Well, it could be storage and it could be a door facing the back. It could be a back in garage basically from the back yard. You know they could come around the house from the end where we're saying don't put a garage in...basically and access the garage from the back end. Like I say, there's a lot of different ways to do it and since there is ways to do it on the property, what I try to do is look back and say, hey what's the best way to do it. And it seems to me if we can skinny it up to a point that we're only talking about 6 inches, and 2 1/2 feet on the variance, at that point I don't, I'm just saying from the overall perspective, I see that as a much better solution than the other solution. And so from that standpoint I'd much rather see that go as a solution than just leaving it to happen on it's own, which could happen you know, without anything effectively other than the permit the other way. Watson: ...re-create. I thought that the drainage. But if you came up that little slope there far enough, the drainage could continue to go right where it is but you wouldn't want to mess with that drainage. It is going to have to go somewhere and I would think that if it got down to that area, and you start having that water pool somewhere. Senn: Well the way the drainage is set up now, basically it just runs into the road which you'd probably be talking about doing, if they...constructed this, what you'd end up doing is you'd probably put in a little bit more of a defined drainage. Watson: You'd have to drain tile it or something to steer the water to the same spot. Senn: Yeah, and do it in the same area effectively than it's being done in now. Watson: A person could...flood his own garage is what it would amount to, if you didn't do something. Senn: And that's not something we can engineer. I mean again, I'm not saying there's a solution to that. I'm just saying that can be a stipulation that that has to be. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Watson: Engineered... Senn: Yeah, I mean they have to come up with something that the engineering department would approve and would satisfy this lady's concerns back here because from her standpoint that seems to be her main issue too. She doesn't seem to have a problem with the garage backing up to her, but she is concerned about the drainage so I mean to me that's an obvious point to make sure that if this thing is going to go ahead, it's got to go ahead on the basis that is...correctly. Audience: I just want to add a couple of things. I don't see, if you do start getting into the 10 foot easement, I don't see, I mean we're talking about a garage here so that's kind of a shed garage. If you start setting a precedent for getting into the 10 foot easement and I don't see a reason why the rest of the house couldn't have been built in that easement as well. Maybe add a third, three bedroom. Make the house extra long and wide and add 3 cars, 3 or 4 car garage onto that as well so then we're really filling up the lot quite a bit. And also, his lot is reasonably flat so you have your 5 foot easement to drive your equipment through here on each side so you have a 10 foot wide truck, that's great. On a lot of homes in Chanhassen aren't flat. There's a lot of, like my property, there's a hill stepping down into somebody else's property and if you look at the properties out in the new development out on CR 17, you see some of those hills over there are atrocious. I don't see how, I don't know how you can...fire trucks that are operating within the city and get into the back of the house or whatever. There is a lot of step, there's a lot of properties that make it easy to access emergency vehicles or whatever if there's a fire in the back yard or whatever so I just think you're going to, I think you're going to get real cluttered...you're going to get not only garages built within that 10 foot easement but you're going to get the rest of the homes. There are going to be new homes that are going to be built...knock out walls and put extra kitchens. You're going to get the same effect I think as what you're going to get in Minneapolis. You're going to have real narrow sidewalks going between houses and a little chain link fence separating the property. If you like that, that's a great idea. The problem with that... Minneapolis or New York City, but I moved to Chanhassen for the extra space. Watson: Well I'm sure that John can tell you that we're not wild about the 10 foot side. Johnson: Because I think as long as Mr. X is down the street has got 3 stall garages, I've got a 2 stall and I want a 3 stall and I don't have the room for it. I guess you've got to live with what you've got. I've got a 2 bedroom home here. I hate to admit it but I have and that was my mistake. Watson: You don't want to put your third bedroom into that 10 foot side yard. 6 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Johnson: So I can live with what I've got. Senn: Carol? Well again, you have to remember this is not a do or no do. This is a do. The question is how to see it done. Watson: Oh sure, he can go on the other side is what your point is. Senn: I mean this gentleman talks about crowding the lot. He can put up a much bigger addition on the other side and crowd the lot a lot more and he doesn't need a variance from us at all. And that's what I'm trying to keep in perspective from that context, and I'm not at all worried about the fire safety stuff because we all know, the trucks don't go in the back yard anyway. They hook up to the fire hydrants on the inside and they just want to get their equipment and hoses and stuff through and have clearance you know to do that. Watson: Well we can get pretty well anywhere we want to get. Senn: If they have to, that's right. It's not going to, as far as the easement. The 5 foot area is all we have a right to touch anyway. The 5 foot on each side. We can't go outside of that one way or the other... Johnson: But I've got a problem with squeezing it in. Otherwise Joe Smith will want to build a garage. Watson: I wish there was some way to keep it within the side yard. The garage is just standard are a certain size. You aren't going to get underneath it, you know. Rask: For example, that one David Braemer came forward with those 10 foot, up near Conestoga. That ended up going to Council and it was approved. He was asking for a 1 foot variance but he went with a 10 stall. It gets tight for, if you get your car in there and try to get out but it's certainly appropriate for storage. Senn: And in a lot of cases we look at these where tandem situations were a possibility. Watson: Yeah, I was hoping when I got out there I'd see that you could put it behind... Senn: ...would work great because...number of times in the past...but there's just no way that would work. Watson: No. We wouldn't save a thing. 7 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Senn: So I don't know. Johnson: I feel no, but you know how I feel. I've got a problem with this. Watson: What does that make me? Johnson: Let you decide which way it goes. Rask: Just one quick comment on the drainage issue. An approved grading plan for Chanhassen Hills 2nd Addition which shows basically sheet drainage back and a couple of spots and a catch basin here and a drainage swale... Besides that, and I don't know what's happened since this was approved and people have done landscaping or sheds or what not. But this was the intent was for it to drain down to the south here and end up on the street... Watson: I would say that's a very efficient way of doing what was intended to do. It seems to be in one area. I don't think that the drainage doing anything other than what's probably proposed for it to do because it is everywhere. It isn't in just a small dip in the land right there. It seems to be taking the water out to the street. I think that basically the drainage is probably doing what it's supposed to, where it was supposed to go. Rask: It's as high as 920 back here and it goes to 918 up here. Down in this comer so obviously you have water coming through there. Audience: There's approximately one foot of drop from the comer of the park up...property. Senn: The original drainage was supposed to go, as I understood it, this way. I mean it's supposed to be, if you go back to, see here's this lot right here. What you're talking about is a natural drainage occurring is occurring here so... Audience: This one is not draining properly across here. Senn: No, I understand that. But all your drainage is basically designed to go to here. Watson: And it doesn't. It's directed to the street instead...because there's a lot of water on that side what you're doing just there so it must be doing both. Dave Bloomquist: Yeah, and from here to here there's about a one foot drop. And currently that one's real close to the property line. It starts off at this point and ends up at about out here at about 2 feet from the property line. I mean there will be a little bit of water sitting in there...and that's just because the grass is slowing it down. There are... With respect to setting Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 precedent, this is the only lot in the whole neighborhood that has...to the neighbor. There's nothing else, everybody else is side by side... Watson: But in reality what we have to look at is the fact that it's, from the property line as opposed to that house. Johnson: Because I don't count the area with a big back yard because you've got to look at his property. Dave Bloomquist: I just want to, oh excuse me. Johnson: Go ahead sir. Audience: I just want to verify this. You say this is the only kind of set up that is in the whole neighborhood? ...there's one right across the street from me sitting on this comer. That garage is on this side 98 feet to the neighbor. Close to the same set up. Your property sets up the same way as this property does. Audience: My statement was, it sat 98 feet to the neighbor. Audience: Well that's great. What does that, that makes it more aesthetic? Audience: No. It means it's a long ways to the neighbor...is that crowded? I mean they have a right to put up a fence on that property? Audience: I think, people on the Board, there's other situations like this. There's other people, they're putting up a fence. On the last project they had a right to. There's no law against that but if he throws in a 3 stall garage, I feel it's going to make things very crowded. ...there's another property, right across the street kind of perpendicular. Just kitty comer from them. Same set up but there's a 3 stall garage on that property and I think it's 1,000, or not 1,000. 991 Lake Susan Drive. Bigger home than Mr. Bloomquist has. But they squeezed a 3 car garage in there as well. So there is homes. You can fit bigger homes with 3 stall garages on properties out in that development. Watson: Well it all depends on how you make use of the lot. If they had moved that house over, there wouldn't have been any problem. If they had moved the house to the other side of the lot. Because basically where the house was placed when it was built, and obviously it was built to have a 2 car garage. Audience: I'm just saying, there was ample opportunity across the road. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Watson: Oh absolutely. The land was there. The decision was made apparently to build a 2 car garage and put it on this house and put it over on that one side of the lot. I can only guess why the developer, in his infinite wisdom decided to do that. Johnson: They can't hold the city responsible for what the contractor does. Watson: We'd be in deep trouble. Johnson: ...put it in the middle or put in one side. Watson: We absolutely don't have any kind of variance in this neighborhood huh? Rask: No, not in this neighborhood. Watson: I have to admit I've never heard of one. Johnson: ...there's never been one there. Watson: On that one we gave in the other neighborhood, where we denied the variance for the garage, the man with the vintage cars. The Council went ahead and gave him the variance? Rask: Yeah, that was a one foot variance that was granted. Senn: So we don't keep sitting here, I move that we approve it with the stipulation that there be a 2.5 foot variance. Watson: Maximum variance. Senn: Maximum variance and that the city engineer approve drainage so there's no effects to the adjoining property owner prior to construction of the garage. Watson: Well regardless, if I were to abstain, it would automatically go to Council anyway. Rask: Correct. Watson: I guess go ahead and vote. Johnson: Second, do you want to second? 10 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Watson: Sure. Senn moved, Watson seconded to approve the variance to the side yard setback for the addition of a garage at 960 Lake Susan Drive, with the stipulation that there be a maximum 2.5 foot variance and that the city engineer approve the drainage to insure that it does not affect adjoining neighbor. Senn voted in favor, Johnson opposed, and Watson abstained. Watson: Now Council can go ahead. Rask: It will be on January 24th's Council meeting. Watson: January? Rask: Okay, June 24th. Dave Bloomquist: I won't be here. I'll be about 3,000 miles from here. Senn: Well if there's a scheduling problem, just take care of it with John. We can reschedule you on any future agenda... Watson: So it shows up when you can be there. Rask: July 10th is it? The next one? Senn: I don't know. We meet almost every Monday night anyway. Watson: It's the 8th. Because the 5th is on a Friday. Johnson: While you're at it John...I'll be back and forth. I'll be back then. VARIANCE FOR A 50 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REOUIREMENT FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 730 VOGEI3BERG TRAII~ JIM SULERUD. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Watson: Well between the topography and road, it doesn't leave a lot of choices. Senn: I'll move approval. I mean heck with it. 11 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 Johnson: I'll second it. Watson: I'm just wondering where the car would go? Johnson: To tell you the truth, that development should have never gone in. They should have, I don't know how. Watson: Asleep at the wheel in 1975. No, you know it actually is okay. I mean if you read it, it sounds like a disaster. When you get there and you look and you think, actually the reality is this would work. Johnson: I think I was on the original one and I think there was a couple more down there. Watson: ...he sent me a little letter telling me I had screwed up... Did you make the motion Mark? Senn: Yes. Watson: I'll second it. Senn moved, Watson seconded to approve the 50 foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a garage for &m Sulemd at 730 Vogelsbevg Trail. All vo~ed in favor and the motion carded. Johnson: Truthfully I wish you would have put it up the first time but I can see financially and stuff it didn't work out. Watson: Well in 1975 you know...We didn't have this big deal about 2 or 3, 4, 15 car garages. You know we hadn't gotten to that yet. Johnson: You were probably newly married and you're thinking gee whiz, this will take care of me. The same with me and a 2 bedroom home. Watson: And the energy crisis was on. We thought we probably would be walking to work. We certainly wouldn't be adding cars to the family you know. Johnson: I've got a big lot but I only built a two bedroom home and that was stupid but I live with it... Motion to close the public hearing. 12 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Johnson: Now the Minutes there was, we didn't approve the ones from the time before because I thought there was something in there that maybe you wanted to do and I forgot to underline it and I can't remember what it was. Watson: April 8th? Johnson: The time you were here. The other time, yeah. There was something in there that I thought maybe you...and now I don't remember what it was. Watson: It was the April 8th one huh? Because I read these and, maybe it was May 20th? Johnson: It was something I thought pertained to Carol and that's what... Senn: If she doesn't remember. I'll move to approve the Minutes. Johnson: Okay, I'll second it then. Watson: I read these and nothing jumped out at me. Johnson: It seems to me it was something but I couldn't remember what it was. Senn moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Boanl of Adjustments and Appeals dated April 8, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor, except Watson who abstained and the motion carried. Johnson: ...the second one changes in there. On page 8. It just came out that 6 year old at my place. It sounded like she was the one we were having trouble...and I just said that you had to keep an eye on her and then on page 9 about, something about a refrigerator. Two people didn't know. There was two people that didn't know. There was two people that did know. So I just want to make that clarification. Senn: Alright, move approval. Johnson: I second it. Senn moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting dated May 20, 1996 as amended by Willard Johnson. Ail voted in favor, except Watson who abstained, and the motion carried. 13 Watson: I haven't abstained on anything in 10 years. I've done it twice tonight. I make the motion. Senn: You've got... Rask: For the 24th. Watson: Is that the one down on 2127 Rask: That's on Red Cedar Point. Watson: Oh okay. What about 2127 Rask: 212 is the 24th also. Watson: Can we get just about as much background as your little computer can... Watson moved, Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Submitted by John Rask Planner I Prepared by Nann Opheim 14