Loading...
7 6681 Horseshoe Curve',! ' CITY OF PC DATE: 08/06/02 CCDATE: 08/26/02 CASE #: 02-10 VAR By: Angell STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a 16-foot variance from the 30-foot front yard setback, 5-foot variance from the' 10-foot side yard setback and allow for 29% hardcover surface for the reconstruction of a detached garage and addition. 6681 Horseshoe Curve (The North Half of Lot 30, Pleasant View) Jeff & Judy Kvilhaug 6681 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential ACREAGE: 11,163 Sq. Ft. (.25 acres) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to remove the current detached garage and construct a 22' x 26' two-car garage with an addition to the home. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. 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. Kvilhaug Variance August 6, 2002 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-615(5) of the zoning ordinance requires a 30-foot front yard and a 10-foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF. Section 20-72(a) states that 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) states that a nonconforming structure may be altered or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. Section 20-72 (e) states that removal or destruction of a non-conforming structure to the extent of more than 50 percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to continue the nonconforming structure. BACKGROUND This property is part of the Pleasant View Subdivision, built in 1976. The site is a riparian lot, located west of Horseshoe Curve and east of Lotus Lake. The property is zoned RSF (Single Family Residential). The existing 24.4-foot by 22.5-foot detached garage is setback 3V2-feet from Horseshoe Curve and 2V2-feet from the property line to the north, thus does not meet the required 30-foot front yard setback or 10 foot side yard setback. The current hardcover surface is 3,496 sq. ft. (31%). The proposed hardcover would be reduced to 3,256 sq. ft. (29%). Both calculations include the driveway surfaces even though the proposed driveway is to be constructed of permeable pavers. Currently, the front portion of the lot is completely covered with a hard surface. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage and construct a 22-foot x 26-foot (572 square foot) detached garage and home addition. The new garage is proposed to be setback 14-feet from the front property line (Horseshoe Curve) and 5-feet from the side property line to the south. The proposed location will require a large tree be removed from the property. Staff has determined that this tree is currently not anchored solidly (tree is bent over and roots are coming up through the soils) and poses a threat to surrounding properties and structures. Lotu~ L~k* ~~ Kvilhaug Variance August 6, 2002 Page 3 Property between existing garage and residence Edge of road '-'--' 6681 Horseshoe Curee ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 16-foot variance from the 30-foot front yard setback, 5-foot variance from the 10-foot side yard setback and a variance to the hardcover surface for the reconstruction of a detached two-stall garage including a home addition. The existing garage was constructed at a 3¥2-foot front yard setback and a 2Y2-foot side yard setback. The applicant is seeking to decrease the nonconforming setback and the hard surface coverage. The existing garage is located 41Y2-feet from the existing house. As a remodeling project, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage and construct a detached 2-car garage that would be located 18-feet from the proposed addition. The proposed addition to the residence would be 10-feet x 12Y2-feet. CURRENT VS. PROPOSED COVERAGE Current ~ Ordinance House 1,217 SF 1,217 SF Addition 130 SF Deck 21 SF 21 SF Stone Patio 356 SF 356 SF Driveway 512 SF 404 SF Concrete 231 SF 140 SF Ret. Walls 289 SF 93 SF Stone Path 207 SF 207 SF Shed 116 SF 116 SF Garage 547 SF 572 SF Max 1,000 SF TOTAL 3,496 SF 3,256 SF Percentage 31% 29% 25% Setbacks Side 2.5 FT 5 FT 10 FT Front 3.5 FT 14 FT 30 FT Kvilhaug Variance August 6, 2002 Page 4 Nonconforming_Setback The existing garage maintains a nonconforming 31/2-foot front yard setback from Horseshoe Curve and a 21/2-foot side yard setback from the north property line. The zoning ordinance permits repair and maintenance of existing nonconforming structures. Removal of more than 50% of the value of a nonconforming structure will terminate these rights. (The current garage is being demolished and a new one will be located elsewhere on the property, so a variance is required.) It also states that 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. In addition, nonconforming structures may be altered or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. The proposed garage does not meet the required 30-foot front yard setback or the 10-foot side yard setback; nevertheless, it will decrease the nonconforming setbacks, thus meeting the above requirements. Furthe~Tnore, the new garage will improve the overall look of the property. The new garage location will add green space along Horseshoe Curve and make the property more aesthetically pleasing. The majority of the lots in this area are nonconforming lots. Several of the garages do not meet the 30-foot front yard setback or the 10-foot side yard setback. Many of the garages are built right up to the side property lines. Engineering staff has visited the site and determined that the location of the structure will not change the flow of runoff on any of the neighboring properties, due to the contours of the property. Neighboring Properties (also non-conforming structures) Kvilhaug Variance August 6, 2002 Page 5 FINDINGS The Planning Commission 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 these criteria. bo Co do eo Finding: The applicant does have reasonable use of the property; however, the existing garage is a nonconforming structure. The reconstruction of a detached garage will decrease the nonconformity of the setback. 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 this variance is based are applicable to many properties in the RSF zoning district. 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 new garage and addition may increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The garage has existed for 26 years and was constructed prior to the ordinance, so the hardship is not 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 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. It will improve sight distances creating a safer turning movement. 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. Kvilhaug Variance August 6, 2002 Page 6 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. PLANNING COM2VlISSION COIVIlVlENTS The Planning Commission recommended approval of Variance #02-10 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, a 5 foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback, and to allow for the hard cover surface to cover 3,256 (29%) of the property for the construction of a detached garage including a home addition, with staff's recommended conditions. The motion passed on a 3 to 2 vote. (City code requires three-fourths of the members present. A vote of less tha~ three-fourths of the members prese~t shall ser~e only as a recomme~datio~ to the City Council who shall then make the final determi~ation o~ the varia~zce request.) The issue that brought about some concern was the debate to have the applicant bring the lot into more conformity by not allowing a variance to the 10 foot side yard setback that is required by City Code (this is where the two votes from Lillehaug and Slagle came to deny the motion). RECOMMENI)ATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Variance #02-10 for a 16-foot variance from the 30-foot front yard setback, a 5-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback and to allow the hardcover surface to cover 3,256 (29%) of the property for the construction of a detached garage including a home addition with the following conditions: l, , The applicant will submit a'survey that shows the elevation at the edge of bituminous and a drainage swale between the garage and the residence. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. Contact the building department for demolition permit requirements. The setback must be measured from the eave to the propmty lines." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application andLetter 2. Existing site plan 3. Proposed site plan 4. Public hearing notice and property owners 5. Planning Commission minutes August 6, 2002 6. Letters of support from neighbors CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (Daytime) OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning ,Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ 75' list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the ap.~lJcation. ,Budding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~I'wenty-six full size .folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'' X 11" reduced copy of /.ransparency for each plan sheet. "* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. LOCATION ~'~ <~)1 TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING I~"~" YES NO REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 1~"~'~ REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~'i{l'x~!~ This application must be cornpleted in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and p',ans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department 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 of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application 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 application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will 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 ~.-ny knowledge. 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 extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on ?-" ~')'-- (-),~ .... Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. ~__ 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. Request for Variance 6681 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen The owners of 6681 Horseshoe Curve are requesting variances need to construct a new garage on the property the variances are: 2. 5 foot side yard setback 3. 14' front yard setback 4. 29% hardcover The owners are proposing an addition to their house, which does not require variance, as we understand the ordinances, however the construction of a new garage does. Statement of ltardship The current topography has a 12.7-foot drop from the street to the grade at the front of the house. This condition makes it impossible to keep the present house and attach a garage. The present garage is on the street, 3.7 feet from the lot line, which creates a dangerous traffic condition. The owners must back into the street with no site up and down the street. The current grade requires a questionable retaining wall, which is on the neighbor's property to the north. Proposed Project The Architect looked at a solution that would re-site the garage to in,prove safety and reduce hardcover. We propose a structure that moves the garage to the south and allows 16-18' of parking in front of the garage doors. This allows the owners to safely back out of the g.arage. This also allows the owners to use the structure of the garage for some retaining, eliminating retaining wall hard cover, by eliminating most retaining walls and using the longer grade on the north side of the lot for a reasonably sloped yard. We also are proposing to use permeable pavers to help hardcover. The result would be a safer garage, more off street parking and reduced hardcover. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 10. The replacement-planting requirement shall be waived. When the outlot is subdivided, then proper tree preservation requirements can be applied. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Rich Slagle abstained due to a conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON A LOT OF RECORD ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6681 HORSESHOE CURVE, JEFF & JUDY KVILHAUG. Public Present: Name Address Brian Nowak 1735 Perkins Lane, Maple Plain Judi & Jeff Kvilhaug 6681 Horseshoe Curve Jason Angell presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff? Okay. Sacchet: On page 2, I think there must be an error in the first paragraph in background it talks about Laredo Drive and Chan View Road. That must, that's not applicable here. Angell: No. Sacchet: So I want to make sure I wasn't missing something. Angell: No, that's a typo. Sacchet: It seemed to be in a different neighborhood. Other than that I don't have any questions. Thank you. Sidney: Okay, nobody else? Angell: And the applicant and their architect are here also. Sidney: Okay. Well then I'll remember them this time. Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward and/or their designee and make a presentation. Please state your name and address for the record. Judi Kvilhaug: I'm Judi Kvilhaug and I live at 6681 Horseshoe Curve. Jeff Kvilhaug: Jeff Kvilhaug, same residence. 6681 Horseshoe Curve. Brian Nowak: Brian Nowak, 1735 Perkins Lane in Maple Plain. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sidney: Okay, any questions for the applicant? Do you have any comments about the staff's recommendations? Brian Nowak: I think the staff has done a good job of summarizing what the concerns were. Safety was the first major concern. There were a lot of design considerations that went into the siting of the garage and the renovation of the house. We really didn't get into those issues in the application but that was part of, a major part of my client's concern is that it fit into the neighborhood. That it look nice by scale as well as permit a safety... Sidney: I see by the dimensions of the lot there really isn't a lot of leeway in terms of what you can do in placing a garage. Brian Nowak: Right. And we're dealing with an existing house that there had been work done about 8, 5 years ago? 5 years ago. Some major renovations so we couldn't change like windows on the first floor in the kitchen would look out onto the street. They have small children and they have a concern about being able to observe them. Sidney: Well an attached garage is out of the question. Brian Nowak: Yeah, given there's an 11 foot fall between the street and the house, an attachment would have been impractical. Sidney: Okay. Yes. Sacchet: One question. There are two sizeable oaks on the south side, and it's my understanding that one of them can be saved reasonably and the other, which is actually the less nice one will have to make room. Could you just elaborate on that briefly? Brian Nowak: Sure, that's the intent is that the one that would be closest to where the garage is being moved will be taken down and the other one protected and saved. Sacchet: You won't have to dig down there for foundation or anything like that? Brian Nowak: Well we'll have to dig down away from it but we don't, given the terrain that is there now and the pavement on it, we' re hoping by taking the pavement off of the existing roof structure, getting rid of one tree, that the remaining tree will have a much better chance of survival. Sacchet: So you're not really going further than the current pavement is, in other words. Brian Nowak: Oh no. Sacchet: Okay. That's important because chances are there's not that much roots under the pavement. Brian Nowak: That's right. That's what we were thin'king. Because that pavement has been there in recent history. So we're actually creating. This is the existing pavement comes right to the trees and then here, the building will be here but we're taking out a lot of pavement in this area. Sacchet: So the pavement will actually be further away from the trees than it is even now. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Brian Nowak: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Well that' s. Brian Nowak: You know the root structure is not just the structure but it's kind of the heat the pavement creates on the roots and the ability to get water into it there. Sacchet: Right, okay. Good. That's a good answer. Sidney: Okay, anybody else? Lillehaug: I do have a question. I met with the applicant today and I asked the question, there is obviously room where the garage could be shifted. The proposed garage could be shifted to the north to allow a 10 foot setback on that south property line, and my question to you is, could you explain why you wouldn't want to do that. Because you could allow for a 10 foot setback on both sides of the garage. Judi Kvilhaug: That question was asked of me today and my answer was, basically we have 50 feet to work with, 26 of which are garage itself leaving 24 feet of green space. So by moving the garage over 5 feet from the lot line and asking for a 5 foot variance, that allows for number one, well. Not specifically in this order but in my opinion in this order. Number one, safety for me. I can see the street and what's going on in the street. And number two, it allows for better green space as you drive into the neighborhood. It just, it allows for a better view of the house from the street. For neighbors. Aesthetically it's more pleasing. If we moved that garage into the center of the space it would be a garage with a house somewhere behind it. Since we do have that 11 foot grade so you wouldn't see much of the house that way. And it really would not allow me to see the street. Jeff Kvilhaug: The lot also does slope from the northern comer to the southern edge and so by keeping it further to the south edge it minimizes the drop as much as possible. The differential between the floor of the garage and the house. So it just seems to be the proper site for it. Brian Nowak: We also, because of that what Jeff is saying, we could reduce any need for a retaining on that side so we are eliminating some hard cover issues there. Judi Kvilhaug: I mean we worked with the drainage for the 11 years that we've been there and it naturally drains now quite well to the north side, and we really need to leave that slope as it exists, and you saw that today. That's probably the largest pad that we have on the street side of the yard. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Judi Kvilhaug: Thank you. Jeff Kvilhaug: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 Sidney: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. State your name and address. Seeing none I'll close the public hearing. Angell: Madam Chair if I may. Sidney: Yes. Angell: Also I have received several calls from residents in the area and none of them expressed any disbelief in the project. They've all seen the plans. They all agree and as long as engineering staff works with them on drainage issues, they see no problem with the proposal. Sidney: Okay. Commissioners, comments. I'll look this way first. Lillehaug: Okay. I fully support the 16 foot variance on the front yard. It's safer and it definitely reduces the non-conformity. I'm not 100 percent, totally sold on the 5 foot variance for the side yard setback. Generally for the main reason is, it could, the garage could be set in the center of the lot, not requiring this variance. I generally don't like to support shifting a non-conformance froln one property line to the opposite side and then encumbering the other property. Is the applicant's request reasonable? It is. I also think that it's reasonable to move the proposed garage northerly 5 foot. By doing this I think it would also allow that second oak to survive and not be cut down. For this I'm 50/50 on supporting this variance. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: Well I do definitely think there is a hardship with being so close to the road. That seems very obvious. I'm generally in favor of this variance but also in favor of doing everything possible to save the trees. Now in terms of those trees, the one that's closer to the garage is really not as nice a tree. It's at an angle. It's lop-sided so really the gecond one that's further away, that's the one that I primarily think needs effort to be preserved because that' s, that one's straight and bigger. Under the circumstances I would be inclined to give the applicant the solution they have because it's a difficult place to fit in and to have the drainage work and everything. I don't think that oak that is closer is spectacular enough to warrant forcing that to be less set back. That's my corrnnents. Feik: I generally support as shown. I drove by the parcel as well. There is a garage on the adjacent property next to it, which is very close to the lot line as well. For a different reason I support quite fran~y the 5 foot variance in that it clusters those garages a little bit together and it actually opens up some additional space that otherwise wouldn't be there. So I support it as is. Slagle: I think that I support the front yard setback. I, along with Steve, have some concerns about the ability to place it into a conforming situation, because we could with that side setback. And even though the 5 foot is more than the current 2 V2 feet, I'm not, what' s the word. I'm not persuaded yet that we shouldn't allow for it to be moved northward 5 feet and then set within the conformities because we will see more of these and I think as we try and do each of these every other week, we run into situations where we try and understand why we are suggesting things. And I would like to see us come up with that conforming principle if you will, and we have the opportunity here. So I'm in favor of it with the 5 foot variance being eliminated. Sidney: Okay. My con-Lments. I agree with staff's interpretation. We're decreasing a non- conformity, which I think is the major consideration here. We are creating new setbacks. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 2002 However, I think as the applicant has discussed, we're talking about some drainage issues. Also issues with placement of a new garage in terms of how it relates to the slope on the lot and I think that's an important issue. I don't really see a problem with the request for the two different setbacks and would be in favor of the application as it is presented tonight. Any other comments? Okay. Let's see where we go. And I'll need help with staff when we have a vote. Anyone brave enough? Sacchet: I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance 02-10 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot front setback, and a 5 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback. And to allow the hard cover surface to cover 3,256 square feet, 29 percent of the property, for the construction of a detached garage, including a home addition with the following conditions 1 through 4. Sidney: Okay, we have a motion. Feik: I'll second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance g02-10 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, a 5 foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback, and to allow the hard cover surface to cover 3,256 (29 %) of the property for the construction of a detached garage including a home addition, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will submit a survey that shows the elevation at the edge of the bituminous and a drainage swale between the garage and the residence. 2. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Contact the building department for demolition permit' requirements. 4. The setback must be measured from the eave to the property lines. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug and Slagle who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Sidney: Okay, help staff. AI-Jaff: It's a recommendation that goes to the City Council. Sidney: Okay. So in this case the motion does not carry. Does carry but. A1-Jaff: It carries as a recommendation...because the majority approved it but in order for it to pass without going to the City Council you need ~A of the vote. Sidney: And we haven't met that condition, okay. So let's explain again for the applicant please. And for everybody. A1-Jaff: It goes as a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Sidney: Okay, and we haven't been able to approve it tonight. Planning Cormnission Meeting - August 6, 2002 A1-Jaff: No. Sidney: Because it didn't i-neet the requirement. A1-Jaff: The 3A vote requirement. Sidney: Okay. So in this case it goes automatically. A1-Jaff: To the City Council. Sidney: To the City Council and will you be working with the applicant on that? have said Jason. I'm sorry. Angell: Yes. Sidney: Okay, thank you very much. Oop, I should PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR A CONCEPTUAL PUD OF 88.$ ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR $40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL. THE CONCEPT REVIEW PURPOSE IS TO GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION FOR THE NEXT LEVEL OF REVIEW, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES. Public Present: Name Address · John Hanna Gil & Margaret Susan Lundgren Mitch & Jill Anderson 1853 Char Jeurissen 9715 Mark & Jen Johnson 9715 Kara Strazzanti 2901 Aline Stewart 2848 Mary Jo Hansen 2890 Mark Johnson 2901 Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 1322 Alton Street, St. Paul 24760 Cedar Point Road, New Prague 2855 Timberview Trail, Chaska Timberview Trail, Chaska Audubon Road Audubon Road Forest Ridge, Chaska Timberview Trail, Chaska Forest Ridge, Chaska Butternut Drive, Chaska Lyman Boulevard Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: I think a couple maybe large picture questions. Now let's see, you're not really talking about developments until 2005. Why are we considering a concept plan at this stage? And aren't we more in kind of the open discussion phase where we might just informally talk with the applicant? Why a concept plan? Aanenson: Good question. This is the process that's used throughout, well the City has used historically. We have one applicant that goes forward that triggers the rest of the development 10 August 20, 2002 Jason Angell Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED I 2002 CITY OF CHANHASS£N Dear Mr. Angel, This letter is being sent to offer support for the variance request of Jeff and Judi Kvilhaug at 6681 Horseshoe Curve. It has come to our attention that the variance did not receive the required majority vote to pass the planning commission council, and therefore will have to be submitted to the City Council. We were both surprised to learn that it had not passed. By clustering the garages allows for more visual "green" space, thus enhancing the curb view of this property. The width of the lot does not allow for many options and we feel that under the circumstances, the Kvilhaug's have worked hard with their architect to minimize the impact the new garage will have on the site. To place the garage strictly to code would be to place it directly in the middle of the lot allowing for no view of the house from the street, nor the oppmlunity for the occupants to view the street to watch for children, deliveries, arrival of guests etc. While appreciating the need to not open a floodgate of non-conforming building, it is equally important to allow for those lots that were partitioned at an earlier time when future set back requirements could not be anticipated. In short, we are in full support of the variance and hope that the council will see fit to grant it to the Kvilhaug family. Sincerely, Kathy and Hod'Dahl 6631 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Augmvt 20. RECEIVED AUG 1 2002 CITY OF CHANHA$$EN in regards to Jeff'and Judi Kviihaug's request for a five-foot variance on their prope~..' at 668i Horseshoe· Curve: we support Heir request and recommend th~ you reconsider the Planning Commission's decision to vote ~no'. Asnctg,,btu-:-~ --~ ofhhe ~`-,&au~.,,.-':~ .... : we beli~;e hhm th%= have p~ed a p,~m~- hqm nol only. mo~ useable ~3 aesthetic ~n s~ace on lhe ~h ~,& of t~ The cc.,~en! l~x~lion or,heir garage b!oc4~ an>: ~.'ie~' ofi!-e children pla?lng up by lk~ street. 5, Sovip~ it as they imve proposed nm only oi~P,s up ~eir view to tl~e street, but allows others to see their home. not just their garage. AgaLn, ~ge s~porz their plans m~d look £oc~-ard [o ~b. em being able to move ~e~d on their prqiec~ as soon as possible. Feel fi'ee to con.mcr us if you brave m~y questions. Sincerely. Margin & Joe Pbankuch 6611 Horsesht,~e Crowe 40t-3705 CITy OF CHANHASSEN August 20, 2002 To Jason Angell, City Council Planning Committee, I would like to support the Kvilhaugs' plan for improving their property. I live next door on the south side and do not have any problem with their construction changes. If you have any questions, you may contact me at 6677 Horseshoe Curve or call me at 952-474-4534. Sincerely, Doris A. Rockwell (Terry) 6677 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317