Loading...
1996 09 23CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Mark Senn and Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner H REOUEST FOR A 16 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 855 LONE EAGLE DRIVE, John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Mr. Kvam, do you want to address us at this time? Kevin Kvam: Sure. Go up here? Johnson: Yes please. State your name and address. Kevin Kvam: Hi, I'm Kevin Kvam at 855 Lone Eagle Drive in Chanha.~sen. Basically what he has said is, you know the 3 foot back I agree with and the variances would line up with the rest of the buildings on the block with the house and the neighbors garage and I'd be more than happy to put it back to... John~n: Are there any neighbors here that wish to,speak for or against? Audience: Well I'm for it. Audience: I'm for it. Watson: Do you live on Lone Eagle? Audience: Yes, I live fight across the street from Kevin. Audience: And my garage is the one that he wants to line up with so I don't see why, to me they should just line up directly. They don't have to go 3 feet back farther. Our's is already in existence. You're going to line it up directly. Watson: I think they would put it 3 feet back from... Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Audience: ...and that's fine with us. Watson: And John, you swear there will never be an upgrade or a vacation or anything of that street? Rask: That's correct. Watson: Okay. Audience: Can I have that in writing?.., we had a wall put in. A wall variance that was changed and we went into the easement and so...we basically have'the legal property. Watson: Oh, out to the middle of the road. Audience: We didn't go into the middle of the road. We went like 2 feet or 3 feet into the easement spot to help alleviate the drainage problem from the street down into our house. So we had the final words that that would be it and... Senn: I'll move approval. Watson: I'll second it. Senn moved, Watson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve a thirteen (13) foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a 28 x 32 foot detached garage. (Note: A revised survey will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.) More specifically, the Board finds the following: '1. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship in the topography of the lot. e . The variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public street or endanger public safety. Permitting a reduced setback on the subject property will allow the garage to blend with the pre-existing standards for the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent structm'es as appropriate setbacks will be maintained. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 REOUEST FOR SIDE YARD. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 9225 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, DAVID DUItAIME. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Is the original footprint, was that about 40? Rask: Yeah, the original footprint I believe was 61 feet. Or actually excuse me, it looks 52 feet fi.om the nearest comer. Watson: So this deck is how large? Rask: It's 32 feet wide by 20 feet deep. Long or protruding away from the house. It's 23 feet, and then it's the width of the house which is 32 1 believe. So with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Johnson: You figure what, about 46 feet? Rask: Yes. 46 feet was the average. The DNR, they have a provision. There is a provision in the statutes that allows the averaging of setbacks. We did not adopt that part of the state statute which allows that averaging but we do use it as a rationale for determining what is an appropriate setback in these instances. Watson: I have just a comment to make, a~er reading this...and it's kind of discouraging that people who have the privilege of living on the lake and also have the responsibility therefore of protecting that lake, are the ones who want practically to build inside of it. They want to go wall to wall on the lots. They want to cover the whole lot with a building or deck or driveway or something, and I guess the last few proposals we've seen here on lakes have been very discouraging as far as any responsibility towards the lake and what's going to happen to it. I mean we've come in and we've got 52% impervious lot surfaces. 17 feet or something from the lake .... DNR can't possibly fix up a lake fast enough to keep up with that. Rask: Yeah just to, the setbacks of 7 feet were obviously taken fi.om the most recent request that we had, which was real similar to this. I mean the Board and the Council both had quite a bit of discussion on this issue as far as what is an appropriate setback when you're dealing with these smaller lots. Watson: Right. Instead of it that...certainly it's better than what we had seen. Johnson: ...gentleman address this and then we'll come back to comments from the rest of the Board. Senn: In your impervious calculation, did that include the deck? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Rask: Yes, that did include the deck and the driveway. Watson: The 52% then. Rask: Correct. Johnson: ...address this... Jim Corrigan: I'm Jim Corrigan, and I'm the builder and this is Dave D~,haime the homeowner. I just have a couple quick things. I want to address the responsibility issue, and I can definitely see your point on most lots. The size of these lots are, they make it, as you can see...42 lots...and that's our argument that these lots are too small to actually build on and Dave made an attempt to buy the lot next door but wasn't able to do that. So we're stuck with this and it's almost impossible to get the 25% impervious ratio on these lots and get a house... I'm not sure if that showed up anywhere on any other lots...that 25%. I can't see making 25%. I mean I can see the responsibility but I think to try to meet 25% is almost impossible. Watson: ...but anybody's use for a deck is not necessarily 23 x 32 so you know. I mean I understand what you're saying but also we're looking at things that go beyond the. Jim Corrigan: On the deck, that's not a concern of our's. The only reason I think they put in a 23 foot deck, he doesn't plan on building a 23 foot deck. Is that they drew a line between the two homes on each side and that's what, on the original plat, if you drew a line between the two houses, it showed that we had room for a 23 foot deck and we thought that was reasonable, as long as we stayed in line and didn't move any closer to the lake than the homes on each side. And we did talk about moving the house forward 10 feet, which we thought we'd be willing to do but the only problem I ran into was this huge oak tree that we really can't move closer because we'll kill that oak tree and take that oak tree out. If we move it closer. So we're almost at the point where we have to keep that footprint the way it was on the original. On the original survey, at setback. So we're not, definitely not close enough to be on the 17 foot setback. And I mean we're more than willing to be at 40 feet to go along with the 40 foot lakeshore setback. It's just, we don't intend to move the house forward because of the oak tree. And then we were, where... house, we tried to maximize the side yard setbacks but we unfortunately found out that we were at 3.92 instead of over 5 feet. The couple of issues that I guess I'd want to look at is, I know the staff recommended 7 feet on both sides. The only problem with going 7 feet on both sides, where we're trying to encourage 5 feet on both sides, is that at 7 feet on both sides, you without a doubt would have to go to a two story house. And a very narrow two story house, and you may as well make a wall to the neighbors. Almost more of an eyesore than if you go with a story and a half and are able to put a couple of bedrooms on the main level. It allows more light in and I think it's more appealing to the whole neighborhood rather than a real narrow, two story house. So that's the big issue is the setback here. And yeah, he recommends 46 foot setback. I mean we're real close on that. What shows up on the survey right now is that's just one of those _things that the person that drew the plans just drew a line between the two houses. I think the house 'next to it had a 32 foot setback and we're looking at probably about 40 foot setback. And then Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 the driveway issue, I think hinges on the first two issues. From...we have no problem coming up with that information at all. Showing the trees and all...but I think the big thing we're looking for direction on is side yard setback. If we can have 5 feet, I think we can put a better looking home on the lot than if we had to go with the 5 feet because at 5 feet, or at 7 feet we most certainly have to go to a two story house. A narrow two story house, and I don't know if Dave has anything to say. Dave Dnhaime: I think Jim covered most of the issues. I just want to point out a sense that I have where we really would like to get some direction because I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place. Again we purchased this lot, which is, if you look on the survey, the width reduces as you get up towards the road and so you're in a position where if you try to position any home, that they'll keep playing with on this lot, you will align yourself either with one side or the other and which ever way you align yourself with, you create yourself a problem in the opposite back comer because the lot reduces as you go back. If you look at the table of side yard setbacks that John has prepared here, you can see that that's a common problem to the lots in that area. Where they've got, in most cases, a very small setback. 3 feet, 2.1 feet, 3 feet and 2 feet are the smallest side yard setbacks in all four of those properties listed on this table. And on the opposite side, because they've aligned themselves parallel on that side, they can create more room. What we've tried to do here is center it as much as possible, and if you look at the plan and you lo°k at the home that was next door, you can take that particular home when it comes to the coverage issue. If you were to take the footprint of the home next door and overlay it on the existing property, I think that you can see what I'm talking about is, if you took the existing house right here and laid it in scale on top of the proposed home right here, you're almost in terms of lot coverage, looking at the identical situation. One difference however is that their garage is incorporated into this home so this whole part here is garage and so I think from a standpoint of coverage, we're doing a, I thought when the architect came up with this, a good job of taking what's already existing in the area and making what we're doing here similar, or more conservative in the case that we considered a garage. Of building a garage into this. And we went to the 1 ½ story specifically because in addition we think it has more of an aesthetic appeal to create that look. But this home, would in any event...or 5 feet, this one here...would be so closing into it that if you go with that wall as he points out, on two stories, you're going to be looking at a wall there. The sun comes across in this direction and we thought if we made it a story and a half...more air flow, more light and everything. We did put a lot of thought into that. Also as Jim points out, just so I'm sure it's clear. If you draw a line from this deck to the deck on the house over here, that's how we came up with this proposed deck length. That's completely arbitrary and not particularly important to me at all. I have no, I certainly don't have an objective of covering the lot with deck. With another consideration here as you increase the elevation you need to get down on the house.., onto the ground level somehow and over the course of that kind of...The deck is not an important issue to this plan and I think what we're, oh the other thing I wanted to point out is, the existing house is 34 feet so we'd come in 2 feet on both sides. And in every single case...trying to move the house back or move the house forward, 'and then counting the right-of-way and the house with a detached garage...so hopefully we can get something definitive this meeting... Johnson: ...does anybody else wish to talk? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Ronnie Ytzen: The only thing. I'm...and I live fight next door. I live... Johnson: State your name please for the record. Ronnie Ytzen: Ronnie Ytzen. I live at 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. I like the idea of a story and a half house. I guess the only concern that I was really thinking about was the side yard setback on my house, and I've been there for 25 or 30 years and I've seen like four houses burn down in that area so I'm very nervous about houses close to each other. Every place you go you see the same thing. Houses really close to each other. I think with just a house a story and a half, as you said, it does allow for people...to look across and see some of the lake. It looks more airy. I have a feeling that if he's required to raise his driveway, it's going to create quite a drainage problem and all the water can flow right down between the two houses and puddle up in there so that's something that might be addressed or something to give thought about if you require him to raise the driveway. That's all I have to say, thank you. Alan Dirks: My name's Alan Dirks. I have the lot on the other side of Dave and I would have . loved to have bought the lot. But aiter this meeting perhaps I can. I just want to encourage you folks to know that on those lots have been sitting that way for a long time. He's...there's no place to go...so I'd just encourage you to see that those lots originally were just small.., small little homes...owned one of those that Ron mentioned that burned to the ground and the only reason I've been waiting to do anything with my lot is because I was hoping to get one of the side lines. And so now that it's there, I'm all for putting something nice on that and I'm going to put something nice on mine and make the whole neighborhood... 5 feet, plenty of room for him to, I mean to access...as far as fire fighting and that kind of thing, that is true but I mean you're constraining a lot on the lots that you have already...so I looked at what Dave had put together for a home and I just wanted to come in here and...on the other side and...fine with what his plan is .... I know it's a tough thing for you guys to figure out too, what to do with this as far as what's best. If you own lakeshore in Chsnhassen, you've got to do something with it... Eunice Kottke: My name Eunicc Kottke. I live at 9221 Lake Riley and we have been through... not intentionally. I first drew up plans for...home in about 1985. '84 or '85. It was approved immediately by the Council, or the Planning department. It was...all of the statutes which meant that we had to stay on the footprint and my home is exactly on the footprint as the summer place. We could increase...but it was our choice to go up because I didn't want to lose any...and I find it a very livable, lovable house. With the...somebody came up with a new street plan. I never made it...I was working. I had a job at that time. My work was in Florida winters for 6 years w while the house was being.., was to the garage down next to the house. That would have eliminated all...to the house...I want you to understand why it is...I'm also a woman and I don't want to be shoveling 8 feet 6 inches out to...just about what your elevation is. I'm not sure. That's what mine was and so that's why I worked and worked and we eventually got the garage at the road...boardwalk so that people can come down comfortably. There's a lot of things happening so that...get rid of the shed and get rid of some of the...but I welcome to the neighborhood. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Senn: I've got a suggestion. I think this works. I do not have a problem with the lake setback as long as whatever we do stays at the outer most part of that line. Johnson: 46 foot? Senn: Well yeah. If somebody lands a number there. Rather than just say, so I would say align the outer edge of the deck with the line between the two neighbors, okay. So now that's the outer edge of your deck. Reduce the deck that 12 feet. Move the house forward, okay. With the stipulation...that line of the deck to 12 feet. Back the house up to it...down a little bit further, okay. Which will bring it... Maintain at least a 5 foot setback on the west side and 7 foot setback on the east side, okay. Driveway would be reduced to a minimum width. I had 10 feet down but I don't know, John I'll leave that up to you guys, which would help with the impervious surface. And the addition put on, that only a one and a half story house can be put on this...and then just basically throw in the other staff conditions regarding... Rask: Yeah, as long as we can get past the driveway. The slope of the driveway. Jim Corrigan: How about the tree? We've got a...very much appreciate this discussion. This is kind of like. . . the tree that comes into play if we try to move the house closer. It's about, it's not shown on there but what would you estimate? It's about 4 feet. It's a big oak. It's a 100 year old oak...but it's maybe 3 or 4 feet in and over a little bit probably from the house... Senn: But your deck goes there anyway. Jim Corrigan: Your deck can go around the tree. We're talking about going down with a foundation and I think it'd be. Senn: Okay, so your other plans that you're talking about...talking about building the deck around the tree? Jim Corrigan: No. I think you technically could go on the side of the tree with the deck if you followed that side of the house. But if you put a foundation under there, you're going to now be so close to that tree, as to cut off. I don't know. Watson: How far between the house and that tree were We? I mean. Dave Duhaime: ...fairly close. Rask: That 7 feet would be... Watson: I'm going to make a motion then we can discuss and, okay. After we get a motion and a second on the floor then we can discuss it. Okay. I make a motion to table. Johnson: Okay, I'll second that. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: And provide some information for them to go with. Senn: I think that makes sense. I think we've got to pin point where some of this stuff is. Watson: Because this tree...I don't want to pass on it and I certainly don't want to say we don't want to do it. I think we just need to provide some of the information that it needs to go forward. Senn: If it works out what do you think of the suggestion? The question is now we need to put it on paper and from where everything is in relationship to it. Watson: Right. When we have, on the east side you said there's 5 feet? Senn: Yeah, I was saying 5 feet on the east side. 5 feet setback on the west side, I'm sorry. 7 feet on the east. Watson: What's on that side? Is the east side...? Rask: That's correct. Watson: And how far is that house from his property line? Rask: About 11 feet so you're providing a 16 foot separation between the two structures. The side of the 7 feet is kind of the unknown. It's the undeveloped lot. Watson: Okay. Johnson: You want to go 5 on this side? Senn: Well I'm just looking...speaking of the widths...give somewhere. If you go 10, let's say you go 10 on the other side...balance it out. You've got 16 over here. You've got 17 over here. It seems to me the balance... When the neighbor comes in with a proposal, we're going to go to 10. Ifwe hold at 10, then like I say, we've got 17 there and 16 there. Watson: Okay, then we get down to the issue of impervious surface. If we can get rid of a lot of, and that's one we can get. Senn: Yeah, that's reducing the deck in half. Okay, effectively. And it's also reducing the size of driveway because it's going to help on the impervious surface. Watson: Now where are we coming with the DNR as far as how they're going to feel about our decision? If we were to move the house forward. Senn: Are we going to table? ' Can we table and...provide that direction. I'm supposed to leave. ..you guys can keep discussion. I don't want to cut that short. You know how I feel and he knows how I feel .... I agree with you. I want to see the tree. I want to see wherever. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Yeah, and we have to incorporate the DNR...more information. Senn: Yeah, from the DNR standpoint. I would not, I'm not insistent on 25%... I think we'll go a long ways towards doing that. As far as the lake setback, I won't agree with them on that either. I mean from that standpoint I think we need to maintain in unison what's there now. I mean I don't want to see something going closer to the lake than what's there now but at the same time I'm not going to sit here and tell somebody to move their house back when all the other houses are down here. Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals table the request for side yard, impervious surface, and lakeshore setback variances for the .. construction of a single family residence located at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. Jim Corrigan: May I throw something out or is that out of order? ... That 5 foot setback side that you were talking about that we've got 16... On the other side was the unknown or the empty lot. Where we need the 5 feet is in the very back far comer...so we're really talking about I think it's 8.9 or something...So on the one side we could utilize the 5 yard setback...and use it. Senn: I don't have a big problem with that. You guys can figure this. Sorry about that. I've got to get to the other meeting... Watson: Bye. Come again. Johnson: You're talking about maintaining on the let~ hand side 5 feet? Watson: Yeah. Johnson: ...far comer. Watson: Well...far comer which is the worse case scenario and...7 feet... Jim Corrigan: Is there a way to make it a setback...over the course of the lot? Rask: It's always whatever the minimum is. The minimum setback is what you need the. · variance from. ' Jim Corrigan: Well we can commit to the placement of the house that recognizes the small part as a non-conforming legal use and build 1 ½ stories which meets... Watson: Then if we move the house forward, like Mark was talking about, and we cut this deck down to 12 feet. Isn't that what we decided? Rask: Yeah...12 feet. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Okay...we're still over 10 feet. 10= 11 feet. Somewhere in there. Rask: Yeah I think. This revised plan you have before you tonight, this one, they brought the house forward 8 feet from what was originally proposed. Watson: So we're looking at another, moving it forward another 10 feet? Rask: I don't think that's possible. I think this is what Mark was referring to. It'd be two additional feet here. To basically keep it in line with what's currently on it. Johnson: But he wants to stay even with the neighbors... Watson: Even with the neighbors and then move the house and move that 12 foot deck which... And that would, and John was talking about a tree and stuff so perhaps that is. Rask: Yeah, there are some significant trees to the front of the existing cottage. Between the cottage and the lake, which probably would be okay with the placement of the house because by the time you get construction equipment in there and you impact the red zone, you're going to lose them eventually even if they don't come out now. That was a concern of our' s from the start. Even with the original proposal, the closeness there. Even though the house paid isn't on them, we've learned through experience that, especially with oak trees, they're very sensitive to any type of construction activity. We had our forester out there to look at them. She thought 50% at best with that proposal. Jim Corrigan: Could I make one more comment? Johnson: Go ahead. Jim Corrigan: On the, Councilman Senn mentioned drawing a line between the two and I guess I'd like a couple things. Whether or not we drop the deck or patio from the house and... avera~ng them out between what he says is 54 feet and 32 feet and averaging it to 46 and then you draw a line, I think there's a big difference between those two. Between those two so.I just wanted to make sure that's clear. If we draw a line, I think we'd be more than willing to go along with that line and then determine what that line is. If it's from the patio and the deck or if it's from the house and right now they're showing that from the house and not necessarily the deck that sits out in that 10 feet or 12 feet or something. I guess that's what I'd like to... The other thing on the grade of the height we're putting in. I notice...the height of the driveway, that's another thing we were considering. There's another oak tree in back so that's why we're trying to keep it down a little bit to try to help preserve another oak tree as well so those two ~ings. Watson: Yeah, and that's kind of an engineering issue, and not being an engineer, I'm not willing to tackle the...and height and move this and move that you know. That's what that guys sits there. That's his job. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Johnson: ...use that patio is... Watson: And the house itself rather than decks because. Jim Corrigan: Our's would encompass the deck. Rask: Yeah, the DNR does consider the deck to be part of the structure. Watson: Well I understand a deck is a structure but when we're trying to figure out where, you know the deck being 10 feet or 12 feet or deck's kind of. Johnson: Yeah so if you figure, let's just as a figure say it's... Watson: Worry about the building. Johnson: Let's say that you average that in and come up with a figure of 46 feet. That's where the deck has to start and then the house. Watson: Yeah, the house would have to be, I mean the deck and then build the house...sidewalk even would be supposed to be 46 feet away. Johnson: Yeah, we want nothing closer than 46 feet. Rask: Okay. Yeah, I took an average of all the, well I took an average of this one, this one, this one, this one and the one adjacent to it. And I included in an average...so that's where I had come up with the 46. Watson: And even though there isn't a house on the lot...that all the responsibility for setbacks cannot be his. Rask: Correct. Watson: The setback responsibility has to be divided equally between this gentleman, and the gentleman who's going to build a house. Nobody's responsible for that in and of themselves. So I mean if we...like you were saying we wanted to come up with 16 feet or something or 17 feet between the houses, it's going to have to be an equal 17 feet. Not all the responsibility, the 10 feet responsibility on the neighbor who hasn't happened to build yet. And the other, the smaller portions here. We can't do that in all good conscience to the person who's going to try and put a house on another skinny little thing next door. Johnson: Yeah, because we don't know what's going to be on next door. Watson: I think...like he's building a tower either .... No, It's actually 20 feet. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Jim Corrigan: Can we coordinate that? Alan, if you know how you're going to place your's and I know how I'm going to place mine and we end up with... Watson: The only problem is, you probably won't own your house forever and either will. he. We have to do this as though, it can't be kind of an arrangement between you guys. It has to be something that's logical from a zoning and business standpoint that would fit and look reasonable. I don't want to have to move away from Chsnhossen because we. Audience: We have a house at 9203 Lake Riley, which is up the hill from there. And we have 16 feet fight now between our two homes and I have about...and my neighbor has...and they were both existing structures that we were dealing with .... some of these things that we always...try to lay the garage where it's narrow and slowly expand out and some of those are just kind of restrictions of building too... Watson: Right, so we want to'be sure that you're not dealing with something more restrictive than him simp!y because we've decided that we are going to end up 16 feet between these two houses and if he's using say 10 feet of that, then you're going to be responsible for more of that setback in order to come up with the 16 feet... Johnson: ...and he's already built then we've got to deal with the new guy that you sell to and he'll say well gee, how come you allowed this to happen? Watson: We always start with 20 feet and try to stay as close to the integrity of that 20 feet as we can, and still allow some...but the 20 feet is a minimum and the variance process begins the minute you say I want less than 20 feet between these two houses. Audience: Then the 16 comes up as kind of a. Watson: No it was picked, Mark just picked it. I mean it still seems like a reasonable figure but there's nothing magical about 16 feet or 18 feet or 12 feet. It's just... Johnson: I'd rather see 10 put on both sides but we were trying to come up with a compromise of some sort. Watson: See everybody's equally responsible for that 20 feet. Audience: Right. I understand. I agree with you whole-heartedly on lots that are being developed now... Johnson: After you've been here a couple years on this Board. Watson: When you talk about variances...been there, done that you know. Johnson: And I feel if you crowd them too much, you've got to realize the fact you're going to get from that front fight yard is the street being considered. It's in the lake. If you build fight up Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 to the neighbor's property...and the neighbor decides to put a fence right up there, how are you · going to get by, you know. That's why I look at this. I've been on a few of these cases where a guy got mad and they threw up a fence and you don't have any room to get by. Audience: Our kids are going to be playing together anyway. Johnson: Things change. Jim Corrigan: You know John you gave us a plan that you said was, here's one that's two story. If we build that, you know a couple things apply and we really try and used a two story plan...which we looked at. First of all I think it's going to be very offensive... The second thing, that plan shows, and this was a big problem. How do you get from the street into this house? You've got a garage sitting where the back of this house is. You end up...and so you don't end up being able to get through the house and so that's maybe you house for example, it has no door facing the street. It'd be a side door, which is how you enter that which means you'd be coming in and out...ofhis house and I think that would be also... Watson: And that's why I assume those houses will end up with detached garages because, in order to accommodate that... Jim Corrigan: I just wonder if you do that, if you go with a detached garage, and...anyway from the street... Watson: Of course it does. Of course it does. Jim Corrigan: You know compared to what we proposed, which is very charming. Rask: Well just about anything that can occur on this lot is going to require variances. Either from impervious surface, setbacks. The only thing that wouldn't...to save at least 50% of the structure and build on that. You could build up or improve what's there. Anything else is going to require a variance. If he went two full stories, he's fight. The concerns do come in with light and air. However, that may be reason to deny two story. The Board certainly has the right' to. Watson: It is one level. Rask: Yeah. What it boils down to is what's reasonable for this property compared to the adjoining structures and what's been done out there now and staff's position, the 7 feet seems to be adequate given that the other homes adjacent to this are 23, 24 feet in width. 6 feet smaller so. Watson: Let's go with staff's 7 feet. That's what we did before too and I think... Johnson: Can you work with something if we give 7 feet on there? Rask: I think that kind of contradicts what Mark's 5 feet on the one, which was basically the motion made. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Well the motion was to table. Rask: That was different from the direction given by Mr. Senn. Johnson: Because I'd rather see you hold to 7 feet...understand where Mark's corning from. Watson: Well I sort of picked 7 out of the air before because I decided that I could get comfortable with it before on that other 40 foot lot. We've been here before. The 7 feet because that way, even if the adjacent person builds 7 feet from their property line, you still have at least 14 feet, which is not wonderful but we only have 40 foot lots to begin with so. As far as the distance from the lake. Without knowing exactly where those trees are and how this would... When you look at redoing this, can you just look at doing it without messing around, but on the next time, can we see where these trees are and how big they are. Because I looked at the lot and it was hard to know. I'm not a good judge of distance and how far something looks from something else. Rask: That's on part of the recommendation is to show trees in excess of 6 inches. Watson: Yeah, so that we can see...and if we move the house forward, cut the deck down, how much can you do that without disturbing. Johnson: Use your 46 foot. I think we can use that... Watson: Yeah, using that as the basis for the least amount we can be from the lake. Johnson: Is the DNR going to go along with that? Watson: As far as this house, I'm trying to envision where's your garage... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Jim Corrigan: ...I think at this, in fact 24 foot houses? Is that correct with what you're describing fight now?. And so that house there is room, given the 1 ½ stories, truly becomes a hallway because the pitch of the roof makes that room so narrow when you try to get what we would shoot for there is 5 foot walls... As you move that in you're, you'd end up with nothing. Watson: I know and I still feel we have to be more concerned with how this thing sits on the property when you're desiging the house. Right? Johnson: I feel that way too. Rask: Yeah the setbacks are the issue here. Watson: The setback is the issue for us. House designs. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Jim Corrigan: You can't deal with 5 though on the one side and something that compromises on the other because that we feel would be doable. Still maintaining and having... If I go 7 and 7, I've already told him, start over. Johnson: I'd rather see 10 but I'd go along with the 7 and 7. I realize it's a bad situation with these small lots but we've work with them for years and. Watson: Do you have enough John? Rask: Yes. Watson: We've already moved on this to table...when you work something out we'll get it back. Rask: Yes, the first meeting in October. Watson: We want to leave that public hearing open then so we won't close the public hearing. Johnson: Yes...there's just two of us. Watson: Yeah, we'll withhold the Minutes until next time too because Mark isn't here. I have one comment to make before we adjourn. Johnson: Sure. Watson: There's a variance that the Council granted in Saddlebrook for the storage building. When those storage buildings are built and they put those roll doors on them, they look like one car garages sitting at an odd angle out in the middle of a bunch of lots. I'm sure there are people who drive through and think, why would anyone want to do that? And I have to ask, the question does beg for an answer. So if, I don't know. If they're going to use those rolled doors, I think we have to be more concerned about the placement on the lot. It does look like a one car garage planted out in the middle of this green space when and they put little petunias in front of it to think that's going to... Because of the rolled doors, it doesn't look like a storage building. It looks like a single car garage. Just for future reference. If it was even not at an angle or something. A little more, there's just something about when they sit at this angle... I make a motion to adjourn. Johnson: I'll second. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at ?:15 p.m. Submitted John Rask Planner II Prepared by Nanu Opheim