Loading...
6 Variance 3920 Leslee CurveCITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Marl.st Boulevard PO Box 147 Chaahassen. MI4 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections ,)r;re: 9,:,2 227.ii8© z~,:: :.:5. ?27 i':,% Engineering ~ :':_:: 952.227.] i60 Fa:,:: 952.227.1170 Finance ?':{:'-~: 952 227.i 14{ Fa.,:. 952227 !ii{) Park & Recreation P:x.~e: 952 227.i !20 %,:: %2227.i130 Planning & Natural Resources z-,l:'.: ......... !3:} :?,'.;/,'. ! rll.4/,', il Id Public Works i591 Park Read Phzn¢: 952.2271300 Fa,:: 952.227. i3i 0 Senior Center ?none: 952.227.1125 Fa:(: 952.227.ili0 Web Site ,', ,', ,',.~i.3h~n?:SS~_:;.T:~ 25 TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: Bob Generous, Senior Planner July 8, 2002, 2002 SUB J: Variance #2002-4, 3920 Leslee Curve EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant has appealed a denial of their variance request, which was denied by the Planning Commission on a 3-2-1 vote. The Planning Commission's denial was based on the negative findings of Items a & b in the staff report. As part of the Planning Commission discussion, there were comments regarding the property owner's ability to construct a garage on the west side of the property. Additionally, discussion centered on the large separation between this house and the house to the east. However, it was pointed out that in the future, the property owner to the east could build an expansion to their house or garage that could come to within 10 feet of the property line, eliminating the existing separation. Though not discussed as part of the hearing, the Scheeles could purchase property fi'om the neighbor to the east to bring the house into conformance with the zoning ordinance, eliminating the need for a variance. Staff is recommending that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's decision and adopt a motion denying the variance request to expand the garage within 3.5 feet from the side property line. RECOMMENDATION City Council action includes approval of one motion: The Chanhassen City Council denies the requested ~ six and one-half-foot side yard setback variance (3V2 foot side yard setback) for the expansion of a garage based on the negative variance findings (a and b) of the staff report." The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use Mr. Todd Gerhardt July 8, 2002 Page 2 b. C. d, co because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The owner has a reasonable use of the property. Approving a variance will increase the nonconformity of the setback and depart downward from pre-existing standards. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. As staff has discussed, there are no prevailing standards in the neighborhood, or unique circumstances of the property, that would deny the property owner a reasonable use of the property. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel 'of land. Finding: The expansion of the garage will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the reason for the request. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The home was constructed prior to the city being incorporated, so the hardship is not entirely self-created. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public Mr. Todd Gerhardt July 8, 2002 Page 3 streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public heating on June 4, 2002, at which the request was tabled, and June 18, 2002, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted three for, two against, and one abstention to deny the variance based on the findings of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS o 2. 3. 4. Memo from Paul & Libby Scheele to Miss A1-Jaff dated 6/21/02 Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2002 Letter from Robert Generous to Gary Knight dated June 28, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report, updated 6/18/02 g:\plan\bg\development review\executive summary Scheele variance.doc Page 1 of AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: LSCPaul@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 21,2002 11:23 AM To: saljaff @ ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: PautS @ learningstrategies.com Subject: Planning Department Appeal Dear Miss AI-Jaff, Upon the recommendation of several members of the Planning Commission, I would like to appeal the Commission's denial of a variance concerning the minimum setback rule on a small construction project on our garage. Please make the necessary arrangements to place this appeal on the City Council agenda for your July 8th meeting. Thank you kindly, Paul & Libby Scheele 3920 Leslee Curve Excelsior, MN 55331 952-470-9362 email: LSCPaul@aol.com PS: Could you please call or email us to confirm that you have received this request? CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3920 LESLEE CURVE (PAUL & LIBBY SCHEELE)~ KNIGHT CONSTRUCTION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of staff? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: One quick question. The staff report says that the applicant did propose some changes, and that there is a little bit of a reduction with the eave going in. But then it also makes a statement that the applicant did not consider, or discuss on the other side of the garage a stand alone or attach on the other side. Now there is enough room on the other side to have a stand alone? Is a stand alone unacceptable or? Aanenson: You're talking about on this side of the lot? Sacchet: On the opposite side, yes where there's room. Aanenson: On this side of the lot doing a stand alone. I'll let the applicant address whether or not that met their needs. Sacchet: But city wise, ordinance wise that would be acceptable? Aanenson: Yes, if they can the setbacks of 30 foot and 10 on the sides, correct. Sacchet: Thank you. That's my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions anyone? Lillehaug: I do have a question. You also reduced, or the eave was reduced from 18 inches to 12 inches. Does that meet, is that a reasonable overhang? Does it meet the current standard construction practices for that? Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: Right. The reason we are concerned about that is we found in the past, the ordinance does allow for encroachment into the setback for certain architectural features such as eaves, bay windows and the like but what we found through our experiences when we granted variances, sometimes they have taken, you know the expectation of the neighbors that maybe we gave a 3 foot variance and then they added onto that, the bay window, so even took it to the next level so we amended the ordinance to say that with the variance that is the fine line. You can't encroach into it further so through the roof line, which they need to change the pitch of the roof. We wanted that as minimal as possible so you're causing a runoff onto the neighbor's property so they brought it back as far as they could make it work. Lillehaug: Okay, but is 12 inches, is that acceptable? Aanenson: It's still, it's part of that variance. It'd still be part of that. I mean that's the best that they can do. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Thank you. At this time would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Paul Scheele: Thank you. I'm Paul Scheele, the owner of the property at 3920 Leslee Curve. I'd like to bring a couple of points to your attention in this project. Yes, we did look at the other side of the property to see if that was a possible use and it really, without demolishing the home in the process of attaching it. We did show that to Mr. Generous as one of the possible plans and what we're requesting is for the variance, in order to maintain the aesthetic of the home and more consistency with the neighborhood. The thing which really got me thinking based on our previous meeting was what exactly the whole thing about variance was. It was an education for me so I really dug into it with some relish and I really do appreciate what you're doing. More so I look back to 1957 to understand how this neighborhood was constructed originally and I was really impressed about Mr. Les Anderson, who developed this property back then was a very forward thinking man. In fact he designed this neighborhood with a minimum of 20 to 30 feet between each home for the very purposes that you're attempting to enforce by maintaining the codes at this time, so he was way ahead of his time before the incorporation of the city in fact. He was planning not only for his retirement but for the aesthetic of the community. I spoke with both his spouse. He's passed on but I spoke with his spouse and also with his son who was involved in the construction at the time and what he said to me was fascinating. He said that yes, in fact his father was concerned about houses were piling on top of each other in Minneapolis and he wanted to create a community where there's minimum distance between homes and something very interesting about this property, and I don't know that it meets the condition of a hardship, but I would like to read this note from Mrs. Anderson. At the time the house was staked, the house was placed too close to the lot line on the east side. This was not discovered until the house was completed in the fall of 1957 when the owner of that property wanted to create a fence between the two, so this was an unusual circumstance. It was not in the original plan of the COlrUnunity. Nevertheless, the distance between the existing structure and the other home, the adjacent home is over 40 feet right now which, 46 feet and with the proposed change to the plan that you had seen earlier with the angling away from the property lot line, there would be close to 54 feet between the two properties. And we've spoken with our neighbor and not only is Mr. Anderson delighted that something is happening to this house to change the look of the front of the home, but our neighbor is as well: He's very excited about the fact that this is going in. He just invested in the future of his home with the expectation, eye on the future of future property Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 owners. He' s put quite an addition onto the side, the opposite east side of his home and the only thing on the west side of his property at this time is a garage and there is no intent to make any changes at that time. So looking into this, I feel that if you take a look at the aesthetic and I know you have come out and looked at the property. That it's a good plan. It's not cheap. It's also not a vain product. It's a product which is intended to enhance the look of the property, but also maintain the aesthetic of the community as Mr. Anderson had originally proposed. One final item if I could show this. Maybe it's this way. This blue line here represents the original design of the plan, modified as we are proposing it to you now as you've asked us to come back with an additional plan. We' ve brought the new structure absolutely up to the limit that we can before we begin impinging on a lot of construction that's already been done to the front of the house. Very expensive, custom built Marvin window there and so we have squeezed it in as far as we can. And what we've got left, what we're asking you for is approximately a 3 foot request for you to consider granting us for a variance. Are there any other questions of me? Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, questions of the applicant? Slagle: I've got a couple. Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: So if I can ask. The gentleman who's house this would be is not here, right? Okay. I'd like to hear from him in just a minute. And so the blue lines that you just had, the one to the window is the new further, western most edge of your, versus the one before. Paul Scheele: Correct. Slagle: And in talking with staff, did they, did Mr. Generous or anybody give you feedback that that was more conducive to perhaps what we're looking for? Paul Scheele: Exactly, yes. He said the effort to pull back the existing eave on the side of the house, reducing the eave on the new addition, sloping the addition away from the property line. All of this he said is a very nice attempt to meet what you're all asking for. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. So anyone liking to come up, step up to the microphone please, and I guess we want to hear from the neighbor. And your name and address for the record. Brad Vonruden: My name's Brad Vonruden. I'm 3910 Leslee Curve. The property directly adjacent to the east of the Scheele's, and our property, like you said is, it was a one bedroom rambler when we purchased it 6 years ago. Last year we invested about $100,000 into an addition and expanded it away on the opposite side, well within all the specs and we actually were going to go through a variance to try to put a grand entrance on the front, which would have been 2 feet encroaching towards the road, and with the expense of that and everything else it just didn't seem possible. So, in this whole aspect of things, with the 40 plus feet from our property line currently to my existing garage, there is a natural swale in the terrain between the two for runoff so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm more than, I'm ecstatic that they're doing an addition on the house. As far as a hardship to my property, I can't see it. I'm in the construction trade and I see zero lot line projects across the metropolitan area. Lots that are 5 feet apart, and these are 600 and 700,000 dollar homes going up on them so I just, as far as being a hardship for me, my wife and I personally don't feel as though it is and we are more than in favor of allowing them to do the project as originally planned or as you see fit. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, did you have a question of the neighbor? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: I have just a quick question. You have a 2 car garage right now? Brad Vonruden: Two car garage currently. Blackowiak: Okay. That was, I couldn't tell and I couldn't remember either so. Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anybody else that would like to speak on this issue? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments please. Lillehaug: I guess I'll start here. I have a few comments. Staff indicates that there will be a 6.5 foot variance which would give a 3.5 foot setback. Now this would be for a minimal area right where we're connecting into the existing garage. I think for the majority of the area the variance would really only be 2 V2 foot. That's the way I see it because the edge of the, the majority of the garage would be set back 7 V2 foot from the property line. And my comments on having a separate garage to the west, I think the property would be limited to one driveway so that may not be feasible without moving the entire garage. I think that's how I understand a new code, correct? The applicant's willingness to lessen the existing non-conformity on the existing roof I think is a good trade-off to reducing the negative impact on the adjacent property also. Meeting with the applicants, their home, it definitely does need improvement in these areas that we're looking at. And I think that this home improvement does revitalize the house greatly and I think it'd be a good addition to the neighborhood there. The previous plan was just too close to the property line. It had too much of a negative impact. I think this is a good compromise. For these reason I feel that this is an area of latitude that should be given and I support the variance as resubmitted. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Feik: I very lnuch like the design, the style, all the improvements that are being made to the house. However, I do not see how I can support the hardship issue on this. I don't see where the necessity of adding a mud room or additional car stalls is necessarily a hardship and based upon that I cannot support it. Blackowiak: Okay thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with staff's analysis, although the non-conformity is decreased. The applicant does have reasonable use of the property. I think from last Planning Commission, at least my feeling was that we were looking for substantial changes and in this case I don't believe we've seen it in this revision. There could be other locations or configurations for the laundry room and mud room, so I think like I said, the applicant does have reasonable use of the property. And similar to Conm~issioner Feik, I just don't see a hardship here so I cannot support the variance. Blackowiak: Okay thanks. Uli, anything to add? Sacchet: Yes. Couple things. First of all I have another question of staff. Is this the only house in that neighborhood that has this distance to a lot line problem? Because I think that's a significant question considering what the applicant just presented. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: If you go to page 2 of the staff report. Bob says he reviewed the case files for variances within 500 feet. I'm under analysis on page 2. There's no side yard setback variances have been approved in this area. Sacchet: So nobody came and asked for them? Aanenson: Yeah, then he goes on to say on July 14th a 10 foot variance was approved for a twin home lot on Linden Circle. So that was what he found in his research. Sacchet: Okay. So for certain there isn't too many other cases where they staked them and they're... Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking this is because I was struggling with this and basically, I still feel the same as last time. Our task is to give a variance as an exception. And yeah, I mean we'd like to have everybody do what they'd like to do but then we wouldn't need rules and the issue is, I asked this question about the stand alone garage. I think, the aspect with the drive is not necessarily prohibited. I mean you could have a garage kind of sideways and go through the same driveway. I don't think it's totally out of reach. However, I mean what your presentation was very impressive, I have to admit. My initial position on this was to send this on to council because it's a border line case and I feel that the latitude to grant this sort of a variance is more within the scope of the City Council rather than Planning Commission because our task is to look, does it fit with the rules. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to fit with the rules. However, based on your presentation, I actually swung a little bit the other way. It's still 40 feet away from the neighbor's garage. I mean the setback required is 10. It could be 20 feet away and be within ordinance if it happens to be 10 feet each way but in this case it's 4 feet one way and 36 the other. The fact that it was mistakenly staked when, it was actually not put where it was planned, I think that could be considered a hardship. Where the house is placed is something that, I mean we look at some other type of variances in town. Say well it's a hardship because the lot has a certain shape and stuff like that. Well, the way the house is placed, there is a hardship in view of trying to expand this garage, and it doesn't fit. I mean you don't want to have your door in the garage from the bedroom. I mean that's a hardship. I would think that qualifies as a hardship. Now in terms of, is this unique? I mean that's another question. Another criteria to look at and that's why I ask this question. Are there other buildings in that neighborhood that have this type of situation? If it' s unique, then it' s not applicable to that neighborhood if we give a variance here. So I think that's a significant question. So frankly I'm a little bit in the balance where to go with this. In either way, if it doesn't go through I would very much encourage the applicant to bring it to City Council. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, comments? Slagle: Quick comment. Since this is, has been presented to us the last time, my concerns if you relnember were, were there options in the back of the house I think where you studio is just from an aesthetics standpoint. Trying to enlarge the garage that way. And as Commissioner Sacchet said, with the idea that if indeed it was built inadvertently too close to the property line, that could be a hardship. I have to say the most visible graphic I saw was the moving of the line, if you will. Quite honestly I think that's, that doesn't look good. I would almost, I'm going to vote to approve this, but also encourage you to check with City Council on the original plan, or some variation of the original plan because I saw that next to that window and I think that's going to be an awkward looking front view if you will. So I've sort of taken a full circle but the reason I'm Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 .doing it lastly is when you look at this image and see this, the bushes, the foliage, and the distance to the other house, I mean literally these folks could extend this garage and it will not have any impact on this neighborhood. And then the only issue for me is, are we going against what we would call our ordinances but I think in this situation, given the uniqueness of this house, I'm going to have to tell my fellow commissioners that I would vote for the compromise that the applicant is looking for, and also recommend they go back more towards the original plan. Blackowiak: And I did miss the last meeting where this was initially discussed but I read the very entertaining minutes from that meeting. Yeah again, we always struggle with the hardship issue. We struggle with you know, what makes sense? How do we apply the rules fairly to everybody? At this point we're talking about the distance between the neighbor immediately, as you look at the house, to the left. My only question is, let's say that this neighbor says he doesn't plan on adding a garage stall but the next owner of the house or it potentially could happen so I think that we've got to consider that too. Not just what the conditions are existing at this point in time, but also what could happen and that neighbor could add another garage stall or two, and still be well within the setbacks for that house. That's what I'm worried about is not only what's happening now but what could happen in the future. So based on that, I don't believe that I could support the variance. The hardship requirement has to do with the land, not the building itself. It's not what is, that something was wrong with the building. The hardship is the building itself. It's more the topography of the land and that' s kind of what I need to keep coming back to I guess in my analysis so I will need a motion. I don't know who's going to make it but. Slagle: Can I throw one comment out though? Blackowiak: Sure. Stagle: If you look at the photo that we have of these two parcels, again from an aesthetics' viewpoint. If the home to the east, this gentleman here or a future owner was to add an addition to that garage, [ mean just from a con,non sense citizen standpoint, I do not think that that would be an unusual or a non-conforming, adding to a non-conforming situation. I mean he would be definitely building within. Blackowiak: Oh totally. Slagle: I think it would look normal. Blackowiak: I agree totally with you but what I'm saying is we're hearing the argument tonight that they' re 40 feet, and there might not always be 40 feet. Slagle: Yeah the 40 feet to me isn't as much of a play into this. Blackowiak: Alright. I would appreciate a motion so. Feik: I'll make one. I'm not sure I'll be supported all the way around but I'll make one. I move that the Planning Commission deny the requested 6 V2 foot side yard setback for the expansion of a garage based on the negative variance findings (a) and (b) of the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Sidney: Second. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission deny the requested 6 Vz foot side yard setback variance (3 V2 foot side yard setback) for the expansion of a garage based on the negative variance findings (a and b) of the staff report. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug and Slagle who opposed, Sacchet abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3- 2-1. Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 3-2 with 1 abstention. Nay votes, any additional comments to make other than what you stated? Lillehaug: Based on previous comments. Slagle: Same. Blackowiak: Alright. And Uli, why are you abstaining? Sacchet: I'm happy that it goes to council. I could have gone either way so abstaining's right in the middle. Blackowiak: Okay, this item. Any aggrieved party may file with the planning department within 4 business days. Kate, is this correct? I'm sorry Kate. I always have to ask you. Aanenson: I'm sorry, the motion to deny did not pass. Blackowiak: The motion to deny passed 3 to 2 with 1 abstention. Okay, so that would be passing, correct? Aanenson: Correct. To approve you'd need a 4/5. Blackowiak: Correct. But the motion to deny passed. Alright. Now, the next step for them. Within 4 business days, is that correct? Or 3 business days? 4 business days? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: You need to file written notice with the planning department if you wish to pursue this and have it go to City Council. So that's the next step, and I would certainly encourage you to do that, if you'd like to continue along this route. Alright, thank you. CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT 3628 HICKORY'ROAD, STEVEN GUNTHER. Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Sure. Slagle: Just a quick one Sharmin. I don't know if I understood completely your description of the conversation with the neighbor to the west and how did the 17 feet front, how did that come about? Something about parking. A1-Jaff: Maybe you can ask the applicant. CITYOF CHAN gEN Administration :' :"e 9:2 227 Q, }fi 117 ': June 28,2002 Mr. Gary Knight Knight Construction. 2989 Watertower Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 Building Inspections Engineering Finance Recreation ',:'~ - -- - - ' - · . · _ _ ~:' -'4 : Planning& I~alural Resources .~. · Public Works ::' Re' Variance #2002-4, 3920 Leslee Curve Dear Mr. Knight: Due to the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the above referenced variance, the city will be unable to complete the development review process within 60 days of the original submittal (submitted May 3, 2002). We are therefore notifying you that the city will be taking up to an additional 60 days to complete the development review for the project, which would extend the review period to September 1, 2002. The project has been scheduled roi' review by the City Council on July 8, 2002. If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 227-1131. Sincerely, Robert Generous. AICP Senior Planner C' Paul & Libby Scheele Senior Center ' ." }:L2::.; :c, :-:' '7"- "~ ' - Web Site '. "V ;:-':.' ' "' CITY OF PC DATE: CC DATE: June 4, 2002 Updated 6/18/02 DEADLINE: 7~2/02 STAFF REPORT By: RG, ST PROPOSAL: Request for a 6.5 g-foot side yard setback variance (3.5 foot side setback) for the expansion of a ga/rage. LOCATION: 3920 Leslee Curve (Lot 3, Block 2, Pleasant Acres) APPLICANT: Knight Construction 2989 Watertower Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-4949 Paul & Libby Scheele 3920 Leslee Curve Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.39 acres (17,265 square feet) DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant would like to extend the existing garage to the north so that they can convert some interior space to a mudroom. The proposal would maintain the existing side setback of the property. However, since the building is already nonconforming, and it does not meet the required setback, a variance is required. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 f~et. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4, 2002 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-72 (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. Section 20-72 (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. Section 20-615 (5) requires a 10 foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF. BACKGROUND On January 8, 1957, the Board of County Commissioners for Carver County approved the plat of Pleasant Acres. The city discovered the need for a variance when the property owner applied for a building permit to extend the garage. ANALYSIS (Updates to the staff report shall be made in a bold and strikethrough format.) Staff has reviewed the case files for variances within 500 feet of the property. No side yard setback variances have been approved in this area. On July 14, 1986, 10 foot front yard setback variances were approved for the four twin home lots at the end of Linden Circle which back up to Highway 7 (Var. #86- 11). Staff has also reviewed the building permit files for all the homes on Leslee Curve to determine if there are reduced setbacks for structures in the area. For all permit files with surveys, there are no structures that do not meet the required setbacks. The applicant is proposing the enlargement of the garage, extending it toward the front property line. The end of the proposed extension' would be 50 feet from the front property line and five feet from the side property line. Where the garage expansion connects to the existing garage is 4.57 feet from the side property line and the south end of the garage is 4.17 feet from the property line. Additionally, there is an 18 inch eave overhang extending out from the garage. City ordinance states "If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements." Due to the orientation of the house to the lot line, the building extension and lot line diverge. While the encroachment lessens as one moves farther north, the addition does not comply with the side setback, nor does it lessen the nonconformity since the existing structure remains. Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4, 2002 Page 3 The applicant has, since the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 2002, prepared an alternative plan for the expansion. The revised plan reduces the laundry room/mudroom by one foot in width (the length would still be as wide as the existing garage; at the north end of the existing garage, the wall would be angled away from the property line to a point 8V2 feet from the property line, lessening the encroachment of the expansion; cutting back the existing prow roof overhang in line with the new overhang width; and reducing the cave from 18 to 12 inches. Additionally, the applicant presented options that angled the entire addition away from the side property line, but did not propose any other changes, and a plan that located the garage on the western end of the building, which complied with setbacks, but required access into the house through the master bedroom. While the alternative plan shows willingness by the applicant to compromise on the plans and, at least for the prow roof line, lessens the nonconformity of the building, staff can not find a hardship. Permitted Use This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. A single family home can be legally constructed on the site. The zoning ordinance (Section 20-1124 (2) f) requires two parking spaces, both of which shall be completely enclosed for single-family dwellings. Currently, a single family dwelling with two covered parking spaces is present on the site. Reasonable Use The buildable area is quite large on this property. The house is set back 49.5 feet from the western property line and 64 feet from Leslee Curve. However, the house has been constructed 4.18 feet from the east property line and 24.86 feet from the south property line. The required setbacks are 30 feet from the front and rear property lines and 10 feet from the side property lines. Unfortunately, it is only due to the siting of the house on the property, rather than any physical constraints of the property that the variance is necessary. The required setbacks do not limit the buildable area making it impossible to construct a garage without a variance. The property owner has the opportunity to make a reasonable use of the site without any variances. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, an'anged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single-family home with a two-stall garage. The owner has a reasonable use of the property. A variance is granted when a hardship is present. That is, the property owner cannot make a reasonable use of the site without relief from the ordinance. In this instance, the owner could construct a garage within the buildable area; however, they would be unable to extend the existing garage without a variance due to the existing nonconformity of the setback. Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4, 2002 Page 4 Nonconforming Setback The existing garage maintains a nonconforming 4.17 foot side yard setback. The zoning ordinance permits a nonconforming structure to be maintained or repaired but only to 50 percent of its value. It also states that a nonconformity shall not be increased. Specifically, the ordinance states ifa setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. The proposed garage addition does not meet the required 10 foot side yard setback and will expand the garage area at the nonconforming setback. Due to the -14 12 inch overhang, the point at which the garage extension begins would be three and one-half (31/2) feet from the side property line. Were the variance to be granted, the building official has stated that any projections (roof overhang) less than 3 feet from the property must be of one-hour fire resistive construction. Staff is recommending denial of the side yard setback variance based on the findings of the staff report. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The owner has a reasonable use of the property. Approving a variance will increase the nonconformity of the setback and depart downward from pre-existing standards. bo The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. As staff has discussed, there are no prevailing standards in the neighborhood, nor unique circumstances of the property, that would deny the property owner a reasonable use-of the property. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The expansion of the garage will increase the value of the property, however, staff does not believe that is the reason for the request. Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4, 2002 Page fi d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The home was constructed prior to the city being incorporated, so the hardship is not entirely self-created. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the requested se-ve~ six and one-half-foot side yard setback variance (3 1/2 foot side yard setback) for the expansion of a garage based on the negative variance findings (a. and b.) of the staff report." Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Reduced Copy of Site Survey 3. Site Survey 4. Proposed Expansion 5. Letter from Gary Knight to City of Chanhassen 6. Memo from Steve Torell to Bob Generous dated May 24, 2002 7. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 8. Revised Garage Expansion Plan dated 6/t 1/02 9. Letter from Libby & Paul Scheele to Bob Generous dated 6/11/02 10. Picture along Eastern Property Line 1 I. Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 2002 G:\plan\bg\development review\variance scheele Rece-i ved :. 4/30/02 8:25PM; 04/30/02 07:52 FAX 612 937 r '9 612 937 5739 -> KNZGHT KZTCHEN & BATH; CITY OF CHANHASSEN . Page 4 ~oo4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN $5317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Tr=H=PHONE (Day time) l'~'~5,;'~ 'j~(' (~ i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Wetland Alteration Permit __ Zoning Appeal . Rez~ning · , Zoning Ordinance Amendment __ Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/S P RNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A fist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. · Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. q'wenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8~,~'' X 11" reduced copy of ~--*-----.--::-~.~ -'= each plan sheet. '* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NC) YE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Received: 4/30/02 8:25PMj 04/30/02 07:52 FAX 612 937 ~ ~9 612 937 5739 -> KNZGHT KZTCHEN & BATH; Page 5 CITY OF CHANBASSEN ~005 TOTAL ACREAGE IAPETLANDS PRESENT PICt=RENT ZONING YES ,~. NO RF_QLtE~ ZONING PRE. SE]ET LAND USE DESIGNATION 1::[EOUE. STED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 'This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning I:)epartmen/. to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A Written notice Df application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. Tn~ is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with 'ali City requirements with regard to this request. This applicat, ion should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this app]icatbn and the fee owner has also signed this application. I ~'!1 keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extensio..n-~for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review; extensi/Ons are approved by the applicant. -- Si.~na~e-df Fee Owner ~' App]Tr--~rtlonRecek, edon "~' ~ ~ ~ ~' ~-- Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. 1.~) L.~. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting, if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. ._ / ! / ! ~ i ii 'i / ~ '-'7 I ~ i 0 I ::: i I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ii / ,,00,9~, ¢,1 S Z '1-1,1 ~z I.i.1 © z x / / / Z ~J Z 0 Z I I ', ~ City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kitchen & Bath Showroom 2989 Watertower Place · Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-4949 · Fax (952) 361-4950 Variance of 3920 Leslee Curve Knight Construction Design, Inc. is requesting a variance to extend the existing garage at 3920 Leslee Curve 14 feet on the front elevation for the purpose of adding a mudroom / laundry area. 4.5 feet versus 10 from the property line. ' The undue hardship is caused by the house being off centered on the lot and by the shape of the house on the lot. This addition is not increasing informali~. The granting of the variance would improve and not be detrimental in the neighborhood. Granting of the variance will fall within the guidelines of the existing neighborhood and will not increase the informality' The purpose of the variance is for the sole increased usabilits, of the property. No self-hardship has been created. Granting of the variance will no be detrimental to this neighborhood, but will only help improve curb appeal for all with the proposed architectural plan submitted with this application. The granting of the variance will have no effect on adjacent property owners. ,'.".~ ,'~.c .... c,,>:,.'- ~- ~, ~../.~,~.: S inc.e..rely, Gap,,, Knight Knight Construction Design, Inc. License #20022883 · Bonded ° Insured WELL DONE is Better Than Well Said MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner ._- Steven Torell, Building Official ~ DATE: SUB J: May 24, 2002 Review of variance request for a 7 foot side yard setback variance For the expansion of a garage at 3920 Leslee Curve Planning Case: 2002-4 VAR I have reviewed the above request for a variance. The following conditions would be required: 1. Any projections ( roof overhang ) less than 3 feet from the property must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. G/safety/st.memos/plan/variance/3920 Leslee Curve NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variance for a Garage Expansion APPLICANT: Knight Construction LOCATION: 3920 Leslee Curve NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Knight Construction, is requesting a 7 foot side yard setback variance for expansion of a garage addition on property zoned Residential Single Family and located at 3920 Leslee Curve (Paul & Libby Scheele). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 23, 2002. Smooth F~ed SheetsTM Us~ template for 5160® RY S KALLENBACH & XIE S WELLMAN 1 LINDEN CIR 2ELSIOR MN 55331 CHERI L RILEY 3960 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN D & ELIZABETH W CHANDLER 536 DIVISION ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NAA NELSON LINDEN CIR CELSIOR MN 55331 MARIAN J PECK 3950 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TODD J BENNETT 3931 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -EVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY 1 LINDEN CIR 7ELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD E & BONNIE G LARSON 3940 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES 7200 ROLLING ACR PO BOX 220 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 aRTHA W HEIBERG i LINDEN CIR 2ELSIOR MN 55331 ARTHUR R & SUSAN C ORNELAS 6576 JOSHUA CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KELLY M MILLER 6590 JOSHUA CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ',TNETH M WICKLUND & DREA S GOLAND 0 LINDEN CIR 2ELSIOR MN 55331 ALAN R & DIANE REUTELER 3930 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOD E & SUSAN M SCHILLING 3911 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PRY A & CItRISTINE A DRAHOS LINDEN CIR 'ELSIOR MN 55331 PHILIP O & DEBRA J HANSON 4001 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL R & CAROL M KARLSON 4031 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 5LIEN L NELSON LINDEN CIR ELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE W & ANGELA K LEACH 3910 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TROY D & KELLY M KNEWTSON 3901 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 )MAS & LINDA L SANDER 1 LINDEN CIR _'ELSIOR MN 55331 MARK ORTNER 3920 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DIANNE E BARTZ 3881 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ,riD H & TRACY L LUNDQUIST ) LINDEN CIR 7ELSIOR MN 55331 INGRID B & KEVIN R HIGHLAND 4021 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CAROL RIDDLE 4000 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 L & KATHERINE A PICHA LINDEN CIR ELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD J DORSEY & SUSAN K HAUN-DORSEY 3941 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN E COBB JR & JULIE A NILSSEN-COBB 4010 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® DOUGLAS L & DENISE S FOOTE 3871 LESLIE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY E & MARY A NUNNALLY 3921 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD & BEVERLEY KINSMAN 3920 CRESTVEIW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LEONARD H & SELMA I HEIN FRUSTEES OF TRUST 3930 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN & LAURIE ERICKSON 3850 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 J.AY M & ANNE M CECKO 3910 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 IODY MARIE CARLSON 1041 LESLEE CRV 5XCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY W & AMY BACHLER 3911 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS R & KAREN J ERDMANN 3900 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ?AUL R & ELIZ'ABETH A SCHEELE ~920 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAIG R & MARY L COURTNEY 3901 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICK & PATRICIA FAUTH 4011 GLENDALE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3RADLEY E & KAREN J \:ONRUDEN ~910 LESLEE CRV ~XCELSIOR MN 55331 VERNON R & JOAN D ISHAM 4030 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROGER A & JOANIE KNIGHT 4001 GLENDALE D[ EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3ETTY A CARLSON 1020 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR DAN T & DEBRA AMENT 4010 CRESTVtEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JON P WITT & MARIT SOLHEIM-WITT 3931 GLENDALE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7ttARLES R & CYNTHIA HULTNER ~900 LESLEE CRV ~XCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD E BELLERT 6641 MAPLE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RANDY J & LORNA HILL CUNLIFFE 3921 GLENDALE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 5REGORY J ERICKSON RTI BOX 95 -TXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL DAVID KAMMERER & CHRISTINA JUNE MONETTE 4000 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES & MARY COLLEEN WEBER 3911 GLENDALE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ~YNN HAYES VANALLEN ;931 CRESTVIEW D iXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL R RYAN & ELLEN J HEM-RYAN 3850 MAPLE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JERRY L & KRISTIN L KORTGARD 3901 GLENDALE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 )AVID A JR & RHONDA J SCHOELL -860 LESLEE CRV iXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN T & MARY E ALDRITT 3946 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBIN THOMPSON RUSH 3810 MAPLE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANIqASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 4, 2002 Vice Chair Sidney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik and Rich Stagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3920 LESLEE CURVE (PAUL & LIBBY SCHEELE), KNIGHT CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Libby & Paul Scheele Dave Harrison Leonard & Selma Hein 3920 Leslee Curve Knight Construction, 2989 Watertower Place 3930 Leslee Curve Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff anyone? Lillehaug: I do have one quick question. You indicate you have a, it's just a little over 4 foot is the existing distance between the property line and would that be the edge of the house or would that be the actual eave? Aanenson: No. That would be the actual edge of the garage. The eave actually extends into that, and we've modified that ordinance because the way the setback is interpreted is that you don't have to count an architectural feature, but we thought in the past when we've given relief on variances, sometimes that's used to the benefit. For example, a bay window or something like that where expectation is they're going to meet the 4 foot but the bay window goes in so what we've amended the code to say is when you're giving a variance, that architectural feature can't protrude into that and with this case, the 18 inches goes beyond that. And just one other point of clarification. This 4 V2 feet at this point, if you can see. It's moving this lot line swings out so the worst point is down at this as far as the closest to the property line. As far as compliance and as it's moving this way it gets past the 5 foot. So you're at like 4.18, 4.57 and it's moving further away. Not more than a foot though but. Sidney: Any other questions of staff? Okay. This is a public hearing. Oh excuse me, I guess the applicant, if you'd like to make a presentation. Please come forward and state your name and address please. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Dave Harrison: I'm Dave Harrison with Knight Construction. Okay, do I need an address for that? Sidney: Sure. Dave Harrison: Yeah, I office at 2989 Watertower Place. That's in Chanhassen. We understand the side lot setback but the reason, a lot of the reason for this addition is actually to put a first floor laundry room into this home. Right now the laundry room is in the basement and the Sheele's travel 2-3 times a year with up to 3 weeks at a time and when they travel, Libby's parents come and stay. Using the basement laundry is very inconvenient. That's the main reason, or actually part of the reason for the addition of the garage. Why they're going out because we'd be adding a laundry room in the rear of the garage. The setback issue, I mean we understand what everybody's saying but it's kind of like this was the in-st house built in the subdivision so it's kind of dictated by where it is and they're kind of, they're kind of stuck the way it is. That's why we're asking for the variance because of the pre-existing condition. I know it's stated in here. I guess that's why we're in asking for the variance. I guess I don't, more than that I really don't have much more to say other than there is a hardship issue with the basement laundry. Bringing it upstairs would definitely make it a lot more functional. Okay? Questions? Libby Scheele: Hi. My name is Libby Scheele and I live at 3920 Leslee Curve as stated, and I appreciate the commission setting rules to... As you can see we're very close to the lot line here. Our foundation was the very first foundation dug in 1957 and when they dug it, it was a giant field. Then they put the roads in afterwards. So the house to the east of us, that you see in this picture, was one of the last houses built and they are close to us. Our foundation was built first. Their' s was second and as you can see there' s a row of trees here and the garage would still be setback from their garage by about, I don't know, by about 15 feet. There are no windows on that side of their garage for their house so it wouldn't block any view and as you can see in this survey, we're set back from everyone else. So what we're asking for is 14 feet that would allow me to put a mud room in the back and my mother has had 2 knees replaced and she hates doing laundry at my house so I request that we do this for my mom. Thank you. Sidney: Any questions for the applicant? Slagle: I've got a couple. Is the, if you put a mud room in the back, would the new extension be your garage? Libby Scheele: Correct. Correct. What you see here is, it's about 20 feet deep, the garage so by bringing the garage out 14 feet, that gives us 10 feet in the back of the garage for the mud room. We could not put a mud room in with it as it is now. It isn't deep enough. It's just 2 cars. Now we're not making it a 3 car garage. We're keeping it a 2 car garage so it will be real consistent with everything on this street. Slagle: Let me ask this. I visited the site yesterday, so if you saw a car just sitting out I apologize. But it didn't seem to me that you were using the garage for the cars. Libby Scheele: The reason that we are doing that is because 20 days ago they began preparation for the remodeling in our kitchen so what you see in that garage right now is the old kitchen cabinets so we haven't been able to get in there because they're storing things there. And we are moving the existing vehicles around the side of the house at another time, and our kids are home from college also. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagle: So you would use the garage though for the cars? Libby Scheele: Absolutely. Can't wait to use it again. Yeah. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: I have a question too. Libby Scheele: Yes. Sacchet: How difficult would it be to put a laundry room in a different spot? Libby Scheele: It's possible, and not as convenient. We thought that if we were to do it in this new section, then we could vent the dryer directly outside. And in the other places we'd have to vent either up through the roof or, I don't l~ow how we would do it. And the further you are from the outside of the vent and the dryer, the less efficient it is and in newer construction they're often having it right next to the outside so I thought this would be the best way to vent out also. Sacchet: But there would be alternatives basically. Libby Scheele: I can't think of anyplace right now. I can't imagine where we would put it. The laundry room is a pretty good sized room for a family of 5 so, I can't imagine where it would go. Paul Scheele: We're talking first floor. Libby Scheele: Yeah. We're trying to make it first floor living. We're getting older. We'd like to retire here. His parents, my parents, they love to come here except they hate the laundry in the basement. Sidney: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Libby Scheele: You're welcome. Sidney: Now it's time for public, oh. Would you like? Libby Scheele: Our neighbors would like to speak. Sidney: Oh, yeah now we have an opportunity for that during a public hearing and I'll open it up for a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this topic, please come forward. Paul Scheele: Yeah, I'm Paul Scheele. I wanted to speak in Support of the question that was asked. Is there another place to do it? If I could have the architectural plan up on the board again please. Aanenson: The site plan or the architectural? Paul Scheele: The architectural plan drawing. As you can see in this end of the, this is the kitchen where we come out of the house. All the rest of the first floor living is completely filled, it's a 2 bedroom. 3 bedrooms up. Master bedroom is attached to the back so really in terms of looking at options for extending the first floor to accommodate for a laundry room/mud room, this is what was proposed. This is the best we could imagine. Now of course here's the existing Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 line of the property right now. The front of the garage is at this point, so we'd be taking a little better than half of the back of the existing garage and just adding that plus a foot or two in the front. But I would like to say something else. In comment to the choice to do this work at this time. We've lived in the property 12 years, and we have had the good graces of my in-laws and my parents taking care of the kids in the years that we' ve been there, but the condition of the garage floor and the foundation due to settling, due to water running in, all of that garage floor really does need to be replaced as well as terribly cracked, heaved. It heaves every winter and so on, so there is an advantage of doing several things at once that we were hoping to do. The other thing that we were concerned about is with the addition, to show that this prow roof which does extend considerably beyond the current wall of the garage is going to be in excess to what we're proposing at this time. The roof line. It's not going to come out as far as the existing prow that's there right now. And I know that's, it may be moot to what we're talking about in terms of the regulations that are there. I just wanted to point that out. Sidney: Anyone else wishing to address? Leonard Hein: I'd just like to say. Sidney: Please come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record please. Leonard Hein: Yes. My name is Leonard Hein. We live on 3930 Leslee Curve, next door to the Sheele's. They're just wonderful neighbors. They've done so much to improve their property and if they want to keep on improving their property so they can live a life that they like to live at their home, I say let them do what their plans show. They're just wonderful people and they're improving on the property all the time. Always and almost every day so keep that in mind. Sidney: Okay. Slagle: Don't go so quick sir. I have a question. Are you on the east side or the west side of their property? Leonard Hein: We're on the west side. Slagle: So you're the one that has. Leonard Hein: It doesn't interfere with us. Slagle: So you've got the luxury that there's a lot of green space between your house and their house? Leonard Hein: Yes we do. Slagle: Okay. I just want to make sure that you're not the oneJwho's right there on the property. Leonard Hein: No, but...I know the neighbor on the other side hasn't objected to it at all. He said it was just fine .... cut the cinnamon rolls and call it square. Slagle: Okay...where you get those. Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Planning Cormnission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Feik: I have a couple of comments. I very much like the look of the renovation. I think it updates the front fagade a lot with the addition, but still I'm having a hard time getting my arms around the undue hardship. There seemed to be a significant amount of buildable land around the property that could be used to construct a mud room, a laundry room versus annexing part of the garage and moving the garage forward so I'm having a hard, help me out on the panel here, but I'm having a hard time with the undue hardship criteria here so that's my concern. Slagle: I've got just one thought and if I can Madam Chair, if I can ask the applicants one more question. I apologize for not asking this. If I'm looking at your diagram of your house if you will, for lack of a better example. Have you considered this back corner? I don't know what's in that, in your house at that point. Libby Scheele: In that back corner that is where I work. That's my studio. I'm an artist and I work at home, and part of the mud room was so that I would have a sink for my business also. But that's not hardship. I can wash my brushes out elsewhere. Slagle: I guess I'm asking if you've got this corner section of your house that's left if you will, why couldn't. Libby Scheele: Oh in there? I can't put it there because that would be close to the lot line again in the back. Slagle: Well I understand that. Libby Scheele: That would be the same as out the front, wouldn't it? Slagle: Understand but if I look at a picture and I remember your house, it's fairly protected from an aesthetic standpoint. I mean you've got brushes and trees and what not going back there. I guess I just wondered why you hadn't considered finishing that section off and making that perhaps, I'm just throwing this out as an idea. It'd be less visible to the general public. Libby Scheele: I think that's about maybe, how many, 5 feet by 8 feet. And I don't think you could put a washer and dryer. Slagle: 9 by 14. Libby Scheete: 9 by 14, that'd be pretty. Paul Scheele: On the property it was originally designed as a ranch style home. And the two bumped out on the back are additions to the house. Libby Scheele: And I don't know how you'd put a mud room in there. Paul Scheele: How you would access it from the front of the house. Libby Scheele: Yeah. We were hoping to keep the, where you would come in. Okay. It would make the most sense on this house because the other side of the house is the bedroom wing and a mud room wouldn't be as appropriate entering from a person's bedroom because there's no doorway to that side of the house. Slagle: Okay. Just trying to think of possible. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Libby Scheele: Yeah. Paul Scheele: The bedrooms are all on that other end of the house. It would be lovely to put the garage next to the kitchen. Slagle: On the west end. Paul Scheele: Exactly. It would be lovely and it's configured completely wrong for that. Libby Scheele: Yeah. And my neighbor on the east side just had a baby yesterday. He said I'd be there but they're at the hospital but he's totally fine with us doing this. Boy, I don't know. To prove hardship. I know that we're aging. My mother has had 2 knees replaced. I don't know what's in my future either. I want to plan ahead and we're trying to make the best investment with our money and we thought we'd put it into the house so we looked at the house and tried to figure out the best way to make use of the land and the house. And I don't know, it' seems to be the most logical place to put it. I know it would mean a lot to me. Slagle: Personally if I can speak, I'm hoping you can tell me why you can't use that back. Libby Scheele: That back area? Slagle: Yeah. I mean personally. Maybe your construction guy has a thought. Dave Harrison: Can I have that. Aanenson: It doesn't show. The simple answer is, you're coming into a bedroom. The way it's configured now, you're coming into the back hallway, but it doesn't show up. Dave Harrison: Right. Slagle: Can you say that again Kate. Dave Harrison: You're talking about that back comer, right? You're talking this area right here? Slagle: Yeah. So is that a bedroom? Dave Harrison: Now right here is where you're talking about? Aanenson: Coming into a bedroom as opposed to. Slagle: But isn't that her studio, didn't she say? Her work place. Dave Harrison: Right. Slagle: Bedroom work place. Dave HalTison: And this area here is actually Leslie's studio. You're coming in through a studio. This is garage here. I'm trying to configure a mud room and a laundry area back in this room. It's kind of like, you might as well put it next door. It's not even part of the house anymore. Going through the studio, there's a fireplace that sits in this comer. There's really not access to accolnlnodate that mud room area. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagte: Fair enough. I just didn't know what was in the house. Dave Harrison: Right. Libby Scheele: There's no crawl space here so the plumbing would have to go outside. Dave Harrison: Right, we get into plumbing issues and things like that. Slagle: Fair enough. That answers what I was looking for. Sidney: Okay? Sacchet: Well I really sympathize with you guys, the applicants. I mean it's making your parents happy is definitely a hardship in it's own right, if it's not in place. However, the framework that we have to look at this from the Planning Commission. Our task is basically to interpret whether the rules are being applied in a reasonable way and the rules are pretty clear that when we grant a variance in a case like that, there has to be a balancing factor like a decrease of the non-conformity. Now in your case you really don't decrease or just very slightly decrease the non-conformity if you don't have that roof sticking out. So even though I would like to let you do what you want to do, I think from the task that we've given as planning commissioners, we have to apply the rules, otherwise there's no point in having the rules. And on that basis I have to agree with the staff report. But I would encourage you to pursue this issue further with City Council to see whether they can give you more leeway with that. Or alternatively a route that I could see how I would like to go with this is, I feel you haven't really sufficiently explored alternatives. Now we looked at one alternative that Commissioner Slagle touched on and that didn't seem like necessarily something that works, but I feel personally, I'm not sure about that. That alternatives could be looked at a little further and if that's the route we would want to go, I would suggest that we table the variance so you wouldn't have to apply for it again and alternatives could be looked at a little further. That's where I stand. Sidney: Craig. Claybaugh: There is no dimensions on the plans here that I have with respect to the mud room size but it seems like a fairly spacious mud room. Again, I agree with my fellow commissioner here with respect to the framework and what we're charged with. I think a combination of creativity and compromise could potentially go a long ways towards mitigating the problem that you have. Obviously we' re not here to design it but one thing that strikes out at me would be to potentially turn that mud room 90 degrees and extend the west side of that single stall out. That would be one alternative that might be worth pursuing. To that end I would agree with a commissioner that you may want to look at tabling this item and coming at it from a different direction under the framework as we stated that we're charged with, though we empathize with you, don't feel that we can support it. Thanks. Lillehaug: I strongly support proposals and improvements to existing houses. It's a good way to update and revitalize older neighborhoods in our community. City ordinances and guidelines I think are pretty clear with non-conforming lots, but I do believe that a fair amount of latitude should be given to encourage home improvements. Although this proposal seems to be the most logical expansion, there are other options. They're not very easy options, but there are other options. I do not support this option however because allowing an expansion on this garage, it does increase the negative impact to the adjacent property so therefore I don't support this. I do Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 encourage the applicant to explore other options which wouldn't increase the negative impacts to that adjacent property lot. And for those reasons I don't support approval of this variance. Sidney: Okay, thank you. I think my comments are not too much different from my fellow commissioners. In terms of hardship, I do have concerns that we really don't have undue hardship demonstrated here. Usually what we talk about is something having to do with the topography or shape of the lot. Something on that order, and in this case I don't believe that is the case. I do agree with the staff' s finding that approving this variance will increase the non- conformity and there do appear to be other options available for this addition. However I do recognize that one of the findings as stated in the staff report does address the fact that the home was constructed prior to the city being incorporated which is a potential mitigating factor so, I guess I do have a question for the applicant if I can go ahead with that. Would you feel comfortable coming back a second time so that if we table it then you would have that option. Dave Harrison: Sure. Sidney: Okay, and I'll see what the commissioners have to say then. Could I have a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I make a motion that we table the request for a 7 foot side yard setback variance with the intent that alternatives be considered that may lessen or not require a variance. And if they do require a variance, that it could be submitted under the same application. Sidney: Could I have a second? Claybaugh: Second. Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance g2002-4 for a 7 foot side yard setback variance for the expansion of a garage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Slagle: Can I ask staff of one thing? Can we get a, at best a diagram of what the house looks like, just for my own? Okay. Dave Harrison: Could I add one? Slagle: Sure. I'msorry. Dave Harrison: Minimum side yard setback, okay what would be the minimum side yard setback we could comfortably go and get? Aanenson: That's something we'd be happy to meet with them on. Sidney: Yeah, that's something the staff... Slagle: They're the experts. Sidney: Yep. So anyway that item has been tabled. You'll have another chance to come before tis again with your proposal. Okay, thanks.