The primary issue at hand was the construction of a porch that encroached 8 feet into the mandated 30-foot rear yard setback, a regulation standard in Chaska’s residential zoning districts. Property owners Joe and Michelle Highland initiated construction of the porch without securing a building permit, leading to a stop-work order when the violation was detected. The Highlands sought an “after-the-fact” variance, citing practical difficulties unique to their property. However, the planning staff concluded that the variance criteria were not met, as the encroachment was deemed unreasonable, and the circumstances were not unique to the property or created by the city but rather by the applicants and their contractor.

During the public hearing, Joe Highland presented their case, expressing the couple’s long-standing residency in the neighborhood and emphasizing the porch’s near completion when the stop-work order was issued. Highland argued that their lack of awareness about the permit status contributed to the situation and mentioned receiving support from neighbors. However, the planning staff maintained that granting the variance could set a precedent, potentially affecting the neighborhood’s character.

The commission also heard from a guest, Brian Wisdorf, who supported the variance, arguing that the city’s ordinance allowed smaller lot sizes than required, complicating compliance for property owners like the Highlands. Wisdorf contended that these ordinance changes created unique challenges that justified the variance. The commission remained focused on the broader implications of approving such a request.

Concerns were raised about the potential precedent of allowing construction to proceed without proper permits, which could encourage similar actions by other residents. Discussions included comparisons between the existing deck and the new porch, the responsibility of contractors in the permitting process, and the possibility of modifying the porch to comply with city regulations. Some commission members expressed empathy for the financial implications faced by the homeowners, yet emphasized the need to uphold zoning laws.

Ultimately, a motion to recommend denial of the variance was made and seconded, based on the porch’s encroachment on the rear yard setback and the absence of a building permit. As the commission moved to adjourn, it was noted that the city council would review the recommendation in its next meeting, where the final decision would be made.