5. Bloomquist Side Yard Variance Appeal.Fj
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
BOA DATE: 6/10/96
CC DATE: 6/24/96
CASE #: 96 -5 VAR
By: Rask:v
� STAFF REPORT
.I
PROPOSAL: A five (5) foot side yard setback variance request for the construction of a garage
addition.
LOCATION: 960 Lake Susan Drive, Lot 7, Block 2, Chanhassen Hills 2nd Addi.lioxs
Action by : ! .nAvw'tm Ofl
APPLICANT: Dave Bloomquist
E -_1: �!l
960 Lake Susan Drive
Mc �f i�e — ---°°
Chanhassen MN 55317
"Ni ecte�- _t .
(612) 946 -4215
�s�e S;:bm�eG to Ccrimi�M�,
PRESENT ZONING: PUD -R. Planned Unit Develooment -
ACREAGE: Approximately 12,800 Square Feet
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING N - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development, Residential
AND LAND USE: S - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development, Residential
E - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development, Residential
W - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development, Residential
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is level at the location of the proposed garage addition.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
r *L
♦
1
1
1
.l
WE�
_n
�V
PARIC t
DRIVS HIGHWAY o
LAK
H �
Y
i ♦\ ii
�r
I- MISSION HI
DRIVE
2- FRISCO
COURT z
W AM
LYMAN
COUR
•
•
I
r
Bloomquist Variance
June 10, 1996
Page 2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS UPDATE
On June 10, 1996, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the
variance appeal of Mr. David Bloomquist. A motion was made by Mark Senn to approve the
variance with the condition that the applicant reduce the size of the garage from 12 feet to 10 feet.
This reduction in size would require a 2.5 foot variance at the closest point. The front of the garage
would require a half a foot variance. Willard Johnson voted against the proposal and Carol Watson
abstained. A simple majority vote or split vote by the Board serves only as a recommendation to
the City Council, who shall then make the final determination on the variance request. With the
split vote, no recommendation was provided.
Concerns were raised by several of the neighbors concerning possible drainage problems and the
impacts that the variance would have on the aesthetics of the neighborhood (see attached minutes).
Another neighbor spoke in favor of the variance request.
Staff is of the opinion that the garage addition will not significantly impact drainage on adjoining
properties. The location of the proposed addition is level; therefore, only minor grading would be
required to accommodate the garage. A drainage swale and/or rain gutters could be utilized to
prevent any additional runoff from impacting adjoining properties. It appears that the drainage
problems consist of several low spots where water tends to pond. These problems will exist with or
without the garage addition.
If the Council approves the variance, staff recommends that a condition be attached requiring a
drainage Swale to divert water towards the street and away from adjacent properties.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20 -506 (e)(4) states that the side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet in a PUD Single Family
Zoned District.
BACKGROUND
In October of 1986, the City Council approved Chanhassen Hills plat consisting of 180 single
family and 52 multi - family units. The development includes 124 acres with a net density of 2.49
units per acre for the single family portion. Multi- family units were approved on the east side of
Great Plains Blvd. Lake Susan Drive would be extended to the east to serve these units. As of
today's date, this property remains vacant.
Bloomquist Variance
June 10, 1996
Page 3 '
Lot sizes in Chanhassen Hills range from 11,200 square feet to 150,195 square feet with the median
at 14,466 square feet. The average lot size is 17,450 square feet. There are 95 lots below 15,000
square feet and 85 lots above 15,000 square feet. Approximately 130 lots have lot widths over 80
feet. The remaining 50 lots have a width between 65 and 80 feet; however, a majority of these lots 1
are along cul -de -sacs.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the setback requirement to add a third stall to his '
existing garage. In a letter to the Board, the applicant indicates that a unique situation exists with
his lot being situated next to a corner lot. This lot configuration provides a 98 foot separation
between the two homes. In addition, the applicant finds a hardship in the location of the existing '
home and attached garage as it is centered in the lot which prevents the placement of a garage
addition (see letter from applicant).
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends denial of the variance appeal as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship '
that would warrant the granting of a variance. The Chanhassen City Code provides specific
findings that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals must consider when approving a variance. The
hardships identified by the applicant are inconsistent with these findings. Further, the applicant '
enjoys a reasonable use of the property, as defined by city ordinance, with the existing home and
two car garage. If approved, the request would create a standard that deviates from other properties '
within the same subdivision. Staff is unaware of any other variances granted in this subdivision for
garage or home additions.
The granting of this variance would be inconsistent with comparable properties in the area. All
other properties maintain the minimum setback requirements. The lots in Chanhassen Hills were
created, by the developer, knowing that the size of the lot would dictate the size of the home and ,
attached garage.
FINDINGS I
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 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 '
r Bloomquist Variance
June 10, 1996
' Page 4
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing
i downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property with the existing
home and two car garage. All other homes within 500 feet meet the required side yard
setback requirement. The granting of this variance would be inconsistent with comparable
' properties. Granting a variance for a third stall garage may cause a proliferation of
variances as other properties have similar hardships.
I b. 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 request, if approved, would create a standard that deviates from the
surrounding property within the same subdivision and surrounding area. Other properties in
this PUD have reduced lot size and width.
t 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: Whereas, the variance may not be based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the land, the variance would be inconsistent with the neighborhood as
' no other variances have been granted within this subdivision.
' d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship.
Finding: The hardship appears to be self - created as the existing home and garage was
' located 17.5 feet from the south property line. A 90 foot wide lot makes it difficult to add a
third stall to a garage without encroaching into required setbacks.. These limitations were
in place when the applicant purchased the property and he should have been aware of these
limiting factors.
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 variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
properties as appropriate separations will be maintained.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
t property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger
LJ
Bloomquist Variance
June 10, 1996
Page 5
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: If approved, the proposed garage would be approximately 85 feet from the
neighboring home and five feet from the lot line. A five foot separation should not
negatively impact light and air to the neighboring property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals adopt the following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments denies the five (5) foot side yard variance request based on the findings
presented in the staff report. More specifically, the Board finds the following:
1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and two car garage.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance.
3. The request, if approved, would create a standard that deviates from surrounding properties."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Written description of variance request
2. Survey showing proposed garage addition
3. Survey showing garage addition in relation to neighboring property
4. Application
5. List of properties within 500 feet and size of garage on each property.
6. Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 10, 1996.
1
11
L�
960 Lake Susan Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
City of Chanhassen
Planning Department
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I RE: Variance Application for 960 Lake Susan Drive, Chanhassen Hills, 2nd Addition
' We are applying for a variance to add a standard 12 foot, third -car garage stall to our
present two -car garage. We need a variance due to the 10 -foot setback requirement from
' the lot line.
Approximately 50% of the homes in this development have three car garages, including
two of the neighbors on either side of us. We bought the house as an existing model
home.
The house of our nearest neighbor adjoining the property is 98 feet away from the current
garage. They have expressed no concern for our applying for a variance and adding a
garage stall.
Due to the lot shape, we have 19.5 feet from the present garage to the lot line at the front
of the garage and 17.5 feet at the rear of the present garage location. If the house was at
least centered on the lot or biased slightly to the east, the variance would not be needed.
Because of the placement on the lot, we could put a garage on the other side of the house
and run a second driveway without requiring a variance at all. The builder's placement of
the house on the lot and the city's approval of the placement has created this undue
hardship.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: n
, c ��
ADDRESS: `"I (1 G0 LGc,L
C � 2 CL 6 k 0, -, ;': �'O_ M
TELEPHONE (Daytime)
ggC1 -1 Z�5v
OWNER: ec irPl _
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW /Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non - conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
_ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
_ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost **
($50 CUP /SPR/VACNAR/VVAP /Metes
and B unds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision*
`>
TOTAL FEE $f
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
— Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
C
I ---.
LOCATION qtpo L ke 5 u 5 a. - b r i y�t,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
' TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO
' PRESENT ZONING D U 7 '
REQUESTED ZONING P V —
I PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION LOvJ ' f1S i 11I fUS 1 RG
' REASON FOR THIS REQUEST +O U 3 �c l Q ►' rG� �'cc P I�G��
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
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
my 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 Applicant
Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on, �" F Fee Paid 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.
ADDRESSES WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET OF OUR PROPERTY
910 Lake Susan Drive - -2 car garage
920 Lake Susan Drive - -2 car garage
930 Lake Susan Drive - -2 car garage
940 Lake Susan Drive--2-1/2 car garage
950 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
980 Lake Susan Drive - -2 car garage
990 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
991 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
1000 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
1001 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
1010 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
1011 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
1020 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
1021 Lake Susan Drive - -3 car garage
8616 Chan. Hills Drive S. - -2 car garage
8593 Chan. Hills Drive S. - -2 car garage
8750 Lake Susan Court- -2 car garage
8821 Lake Susan Court- -3 car garage
8831 Lake Susan Court- -2 car garage
8841 Lake Susan Court- -2 car garage
8851 Lake Susan Court- -3 car garage
8861 Lake Susan Court- -2 car garage
8620 Chan. Hills Drive N. - -2 car garage
8624 Chan. Hills Drive N. - -3 car garage
8628 Chan. Hills Drive N. - -2 car garage
8632 Chan. Hills Drive N - -2 car garage
8636 Chan. Hills Drive N - -3 car garage
1051 Barbara Court- -3 car garage
1041 Barbara Court- -3 car garage
1031 Barbara Court- -3 car garage
991 Barbara Court- -2 car garage
1001 Barbara Court- -2 car garage
1011 Barbara Court- -3 car garage
� I
t
C
I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND
APPEALS
' Monday, JUNE 10, 1996
6:30 P.M.
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a variance proposed in your area.
The applicant, Dave Bloomquist, requests a variance from the 10 side yard setback requirement for
' the construction of a garage addition at 960 Lake Susan Drive.
' 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 Board of Adjustments Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
' steps:
1
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. Comments are received from the public.
3. Public hearing is closed and the Board discusses project. The Board will then
take action on the proposal.
Questions or 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 John at 937 -1900, ext. 117. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance
of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Board.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 23, 1996
�� P
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Variance to Side Yard
'
Setback for Construction of
a Garage Addition
Applicant: Dave Bloomquist
'
Location: 960 Lake Susan Drive
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a variance proposed in your area.
The applicant, Dave Bloomquist, requests a variance from the 10 side yard setback requirement for
' the construction of a garage addition at 960 Lake Susan Drive.
' 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 Board of Adjustments Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
' steps:
1
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. Comments are received from the public.
3. Public hearing is closed and the Board discusses project. The Board will then
take action on the proposal.
Questions or 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 John at 937 -1900, ext. 117. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance
of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Board.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 23, 1996
�� P
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
910 Lake Susan Drive
920 Lake Susan Drive
930 Lake Susan Drive
,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
940 Lake Susan Drive .
950 Lake Susan Drive
980 Lake Susan Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
'
990 Lake Susan Drive
991 Lake Susan Drive
1000 Lake Susan Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
,
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
,
1001 Lake Susan Drive
1010 Lake Susan Drive
1011 Lake Susan Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Owner
1020 Lake Susan Drive
Current Owner
1021 Lake Susan Drive
Current Owner
8616 Chan Hills Drive S.
,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
8593 Chan Hills Drive S.
8750 Lake Susan Court
8821 Lake Susan Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
'
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
8831 Lake Susan Court
8841 Lake Susan Court
8851 Lake Susan Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
'
8861 Lake Susan Court
8620 Chan Hills Drive N.
8624 Chan Hills Drive N.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
8628 Chan Hills Drive N.
8632 Chan Hills Drive N.
8636 Chan Hills Drive N.
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Owner
Current Owner
Current Owner
1051 Barbara Court
1041 Barbara Court
1031 Barbara Court
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
V
I
1
1
Current Owner
991 Barbara Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Owner
1001 Barbara Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Owner
1011 Barbara Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF '
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 10, 1996
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. '
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Mark Senn
STAFF PRESENT: John Rask Planner I '
5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A '
GARAGE ADDITION AT 960 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE, DAVE BLOOMOUIST.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Johnson: Mr. Bloomquist, do you want to address this? State your name and if you have any I
comments you want to make to the Board.
Dave Bloomquist: Dave Bloomquist. The reason for the addition on the garage ... The '
setback.... actually 21 feet on the other side of the house... trying to get a variance so that I'm
consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. The house, to the center of the lot
where there's the most ... Any questions? '
Johnson: Not at this time? Anybody else from the neighborhood wish to speak?
Dave Pierre: Yeah, I would. '
Johnson: State your name please. I
Dave Pierre: My name is Dave Pierre and I live across the street from Dave. And I guess
from my perspective, I have no problem with it. I think in fact it would probably be a little '
more consistent with the neighborhood since the houses on the right hand side, he has a three
car garage. And you know, as they say, it certainly wouldn't deter from the neighborhood so
I would support it. ,
Bruce Long: Bruce Long... I'm against this proposal because when Mr. Bloomquist bought ,
the house as it is with a 2 car garage. It states in the covenants of our development that there
should be no other buildings like sheds or anything. Mr Bloomquist currently has a shed...
storing of his additional property. It's unfortunate that the house was built 21 feet on the '
other side but that's how it was built and Mr. Bloomquist entered into that agreement when he
bought the house. I'm sure, you know he has a two car garage. He probably has a bigger
house than I do. There are homes in that development, when the Third Addition was built... '
10 feet away from the property with 3 car garages. So the possibility of building a house on
I''I
Ll
FJ
I�
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
that property with a 2 car garage home on it, it could have been a good possibility that if the
builder, whoever that was, had ample time and plenty of opportunity to put a house in there
with a 3 car garage. The problem that also arises here that Mr. Bloomquist is granted the
opportunity to build in the 10 foot area, then the 5 foot easement, things are going to get
pretty tight when the utility company has to get in there with telephone... Also, he's in kind of
a unique situation. His side property backs up into a neighbor's back yard, which kind of
gives the effect of more open space. But if he's allowed to do that, then the rest of the
neighborhood is wanting to build in their 5 foot, 10 foot easements as well. So you get more
of a problem with that... Not that there's anything wrong with that but I guess ... so I've got to
say that Mr. Bloomquist, there are other homes in that development. Maybe not right now
for sale with 3 car garages ... open up the possibility for anybody to start building sheds on the
other side of the property and 3 car garages. If you have a 2 car garage right now ... I have the
opportunity to build a 4 car garage... The houses are too close together and the sheds and 4 -5
car garages, depending on the property that you have, it's going to take away from the
neighborhood and I suggest that this 10 foot easement where it is. That's it.
Johnson: Thank you. Anybody else?
Audience: Sir, what's your name again, I'm sorry.
Bruce Long: It's Bruce Long.
Audience: And what's your address?
Bruce Long: It's 990 Lake Susan Drive. My home was built, some of those large homes that
have a 3 car garage.
Johnson: Anyone else wish to address it? Do you wish to address this?
Ty Lac: My name is Ty Lac and I live right there. I don't really have a lot of problem with
this. I want to make sure everybody has done their homework before it gets approved, if it
really gets approved. Some of the concerns about how our community image. My husband
is working tonight so he put me in charge but, the drainage may be an issue and ... projects that
are not. We do have a problem there so I wouldn't want to make it worse. And the other
problem that I have is, their fireplace sits right on that side of the house, which I would guess
is a pretty common place to have a fire, if there were to be a fire. And so it may be difficult
to get through, to get a fire truck through. And I know on the other side you can but my
concern would be that the fence would have to come down in order to get to an area back
there. But other than that, I mean I don't, I'm not saying I don't approve of it. I just want to
make sure that everybody can make me feel confident that it's a good decision.
2
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Johnson: You're the house to the left as you face it?
Ty Lac: Yes. I look at it.
Watson: I saw that drainage water.
Johnson: Thank you ma'am. Anybody else wish to address this? Mark, do you want to go
first? Or Carol, either one of you. Go ahead Mark.
Senn: I'm a little confused on exactly what, why are we ending up with a 5 foot variance?
Rask: Right now the current home is about 17 1/2 feet from the property line so adding a
third stall, going into.
Senn: ...Okay.
Rask: Yeah, it's certainly the closest point. It does widen out as it gets closer to the street
Senn: Okay, so really what it is, at that point then it's really, what you're assuming then is
you're assuming what the 12 foot... construction then?
Rask: Yes, correct.
Watson: So that allows for the door and...
Johnson: Plus you're overhang hanging over.
Senn: I don't know, when I went out and looked at it, you know if he wants the storage
space ... put it on the other side of the house. He doesn't have to ask us one way or the other
I don't like that solution because you're going to look at it and say that it makes a lot more
sense ... on the other side so I guess I hear that a little bit ... space they can go there. And so
that bothers me and looking effectively at kind of the rest of the neighborhood, you kind of
stand back ... right in front of the house and go back and look, you know it really...
Watson: We had a precedent up there on Ridge Road. That new house up there has a garage
on the side.
Senn: I know...
Watson: It's really odd looking too.
3
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
' Senn: I know. Personally, hat's what you start thinking y y g about...
Watson: Actually it's a very expensive home. It proves the point.
Senn: What I was looking at when I was out there, and I talked with the applicant a little bit
about this. We're basically taking the outer wall, or the plan is to take the outer wall out of
the garage and put a better, a cluster basically and just expanding the current garage up there.
' To do that, it doesn't need to be 12 feet. In fact if you look at the way their piers are set up,
you wouldn't want it to be 12 feet because they would start the door frame off of the existing
pier. Because that way there are piers all across the front of the house would match.
Watson: How much do you catch up then by doing that?
Senn: You catch up a little over 2 feet, okay. So what happens is, if you do that, now we're
down to inches in terms of the variance. Because as soon as you pick up that 2 feet, and
you're talking about building the garage out not 12 feet but 10 feet out, we're looking at the
' front corner being less than, I think 6 inches variance and the back corner being, I think it
was like a foot and a half on a variance.
Rask: Yeah, he's at 17 1/2 now so if you could shave 2 more.
Senn: So that'd be 18, 19 1/2 so I mean he's a half foot off basically, right?
Rask: He's at 17 now so if he came out 10 feet, he would have 7 1/2 feet from the property
line. The current garage is 17 1/2.
Senn: Okay, so you've got 2 1/2 from the back corner. You have 6 inches in the front.
Rask: And 6 inches in the front.
Senn: Okay, 6 inches in the front corner. 2 1/2 in the back corner. Which would still leave
you basically, then what? 7 1/2 feet from the property line basically to get around the house.
Johnson: But the other home, the others are still at 10 feet?
Senn: No, I understand what you're saying Willard but I'm just saying, I was out there saying
how do you weigh this versus that and to me, what I found... weighing it in fact this way to
see if there was a way to make ... and so we don't have a problem with the drainage. We don't
have the problems with getting around the house. But again, the other solution is very
obvious. You know we've talked about it time and time again and people are starting to do it
51
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
that way and again, to me that would, I think we'd have a lot of irritated people in the
neighborhood that way...a mess but that's just my opinion.
Watson: Well and we don't want all the additional accesses if they need to connect that to
the street.
Senn: That's right. Which they have every right to do again.
Watson: Well, it makes sense. I mean unless they do just want it for storage and don't need
to drive a vehicle.
Senn: Well, it could be storage and it could be a door facing the back. It could be a back in
garage basically from the back yard. You know they could come around the house from the
end where we're saying don't put a garage in ... basically and access the garage from the back
end. Like I say, there's a lot of different ways to do it and since there is ways to do it on the
property, what I try to do is look back and say, hey what's the best way to do it. And it
seems to me if we can skinny it up to a point that we're only talking about 6 inches, and 2 '
1/2 feet on the variance, at that point I don't, I'm just saying from the overall perspective, I
see that as a much better solution than the other solution. And so from that standpoint I'd
much rather see that go as a solution than just leaving it to happen on it's own, which could '
happen you know, without anything effectively other than the permit the other way.
Watson: ...re- create. I thought that the drainage. But if you came up that little slope there
far enough, the drainage could continue to go right where it is but you wouldn't want to mess
with that drainage. It is going to have to go somewhere and I would think that if it got down '
to that area, and you start having that water pool somewhere.
Senn: Well the way the drainage is set up now, basically it just runs into the road which '
you'd probably be talking about doing, if they... constructed this, what you'd end up doing is
you'd probably put in a little bit more of a defined drainage.
Watson: You'd have to drain tile it or something to steer the water to the same spot. r
Senn: Yeah, and do it in the same area effectively than it's being done in now. '
Watson: A person could ... flood his own garage is what it would amount to, if you didn't do
something.
Senn: And that's not something we can engineer. I mean again, I'm not saying there's a
solution to that. I'm just saying that can be a stipulation that that has to be.
� I
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Watson: Engineered...
Senn: Yeah, I mean they have to come up with something that the engineering department
would approve and would satisfy this lady's concerns back here because from her standpoint
that seems to be her main issue too. She doesn't seem to have a problem with the garage
backing up to her, but she is concerned about the drainage so I mean to me that's an obvious
point to make sure that if this thing is going to go ahead, it's got to go ahead on the basis that
is ... correctly.
Audience: I just want to add a couple of things. I don't see, if you do start getting into the 10
foot easement, I don't see, I mean we're talking about a garage here so that's kind of a shed
garage. If you start setting a precedent for getting into the 10 foot easement and I don't see a
reason why the rest of the house couldn't have been built in that easement as well. Maybe
add a third, three bedroom. Make the house extra long and wide and add 3 cars, 3 or 4 car
garage onto that as well so then we're really filling up the lot quite a bit. And also, his lot is
reasonably flat so you have your 5 foot easement to drive your equipment through here on
each side so you have a 10 foot wide truck, that's great. On a lot of homes in Chanhassen
aren't flat. There's a lot of, like my property, there's a hill stepping down into somebody
else's property and if you look at the properties out in the new development out on CR 17,
you see some of those hills over there are atrocious. I don't see how, I don't know how you
can...fire trucks that are operating within the city and get into the back of the house or
whatever. There is a lot of step, there's a lot of properties that make it easy to access
emergency vehicles or whatever if there's a fire in the back yard or whatever so I just think
you're going to, I think you're going to get real cluttered... you're going to get not only garages
built within that 10 foot easement but you're going to get the rest of the homes. There are
going to be new homes that are going to be built ... knock out walls and put extra kitchens.
You're going to get the same effect I think as what you're going to get in Minneapolis.
You're going to have real narrow sidewalks going between houses and a little chain link fence
separating the property. If you like that, that's a great idea. The problem with that...
Minneapolis or New York City, but I moved to Chanhassen for the extra space.
Watson: Well I'm sure that John can tell you that we're not wild about the 10 foot side.
Johnson: Because I think as long as Mr. X is down the street has got 3 stall garages, I've got
a 2 stall and I want a 3 stall and I don't have the room for it. I guess you've got to live with
what you've got. I've got a 2 bedroom home here. I hate to admit it but I have and that was
my mistake.
Watson: You don't want to put your third bedroom into that 10 foot side yard.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Johnson: So I can live with what I've got.
Senn: Carol? Well again, you have to remember this is not a do or no do. This is a do.
The question is how to see it done.
Watson: Oh sure, he can go on the other side is what your point is.
Senn: I mean this gentleman talks about crowding the lot. He can put up a much bigger
addition on the other side and crowd the lot a lot more and he doesn't need a variance from
us at all. And that's what I'm trying to keep in perspective from that context, and I'm not at
all worried about the fire safety stuff because we all know, the trucks don't go in the back
yard anyway. They hook up to the fire hydrants on the inside and they just want to get their
equipment and hoses and stuff through and have clearance you know to do that.
Watson: Well we can get pretty well anywhere we want to get.
Senn: If they have to, that's right. It's not going to, as far as the easement. The 5 foot area
is all we have a right to touch anyway. The 5 foot on each side. We can't go outside of that
one way or the other...
Johnson: But I've got a problem with squeezing it in. Otherwise Joe Smith will want to
build a garage.
Watson: I wish there was some way to keep it within the side yard. The garage is just
standard are a certain size. You aren't going to get underneath it, you know.
Rask: For example, that one David Braemer came forward with those 10 foot, up near
Conestoga. That ended up going to Council and it was approved. He was asking for a 1 foot
variance but he went with a 10 stall. It gets tight for, if you get your car in there and try to
get out but it's certainly appropriate for storage.
Senn: And in a lot of cases we look at these where tandem situations were a possibility.
Watson: Yeah, I was hoping when I got out there I'd see that you could put it behind...
Senn: ...would work great because... number of times in the past ... but there's just no way that
would work.
Watson: No. We wouldn't save a thing.
7
7
L
I
1 �
f
1
1
r
I
F,
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Senn: So I don't know.
Johnson: I feel no, but you know how I feel. I've got a problem with this.
Watson: What does that make me?
Johnson: Let you decide which way it goes.
Rask: Just one quick comment on the drainage issue. An approved grading plan for
Chanhassen Hills 2nd Addition which shows basically sheet drainage back and a couple of
spots and a catch basin here and a drainage swale... Besides that, and I don't know what's
happened since this was approved and people have done landscaping or sheds or what not.
But this was the intent was for it to drain down to the south here and end up on the street.
Watson: I would say that's a very efficient way of doing what was intended to do. It seems
to be in one area. I don't think that the drainage doing anything other than what's probably
proposed for it to do because it is everywhere. It isn't in just a small dip in the land right
there. It seems to be taking the water out to the street. I think that basically the drainage is
probably doing what it's supposed to, where it was supposed to go.
Rask: It's as high as 920 back here and it goes to 918 up here. Down in this corner so
obviously you have water coming through there.
Audience: There's approximately one foot of drop from the corner of the park up ... property,
Senn: The original drainage was supposed to go, as I understood it, this way. I mean it's
supposed to be, if you go back to, see here's this lot right here. What you're talking about is
a natural drainage occurring is occurring here so...
Audience: This one is not draining properly across here.
Senn: No, I understand that. But all your drainage is basically designed to go to here.
Watson: And it doesn't. It's directed to the street instead... because there's a lot of water on
that side what you're doing just there so it must be doing both.
Dave Bloomquist: Yeah, and from here to here there's about a one foot drop. And currently
that one's real close to the property line. It starts off at this point and ends up at about out
here at about 2 feet from the property line. I mean there will be a little bit of water sitting in
there... and that's just because the grass is slowing it down. There are... With respect to setting
8
Ll
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
precedent, this is the only lot in the whole neighborhood that has ... to the neighbor. There's
nothing else, everybody else is side by side...
Watson: But in reality what we have to look at is the fact that it's, from the property line as
opposed to that house.
Johnson: Because I don't count the area with a big back yard because you've got to look at
his property.
Dave Bloomquist: I just want to, oh excuse me.
Johnson: Go ahead sir.
Audience: I just want to verify this. You say this is the only kind of set up that is in the
whole neighborhood? ...there's one right across the street from me sitting on this corner. That
garage is on this side 98 feet to the neighbor. Close to the same set up. Your property sets
up the same way as this property does.
Audience: My statement was, it sat 98 feet to the neighbor.
Audience: Well that's great. What does that, that makes it more aesthetic?
Audience: No. It means it's a long ways to the neighbor ... is that crowded? I mean they
have a right to put up a fence on that property?
Audience: I think, people on the Board, there's other situations like this. There's other
people, they're putting up a fence. On the last project they had a right to. There's no law
against that but if he throws in a 3 stall garage, I feel it's going to make things very crowded.
...there's another property, right across the street kind of perpendicular. Just kitty corner from
them. Same set up but there's a 3 stall garage on that property and I think it's 1,000, or not
1,000. 991 Lake Susan Drive. Bigger home than Mr. Bloomquist has. But they squeezed a
3 car garage in there as well. So there is homes. You can fit bigger homes with 3 stall
garages on properties out in that development.
Watson: Well it all depends on how you make use of the lot. If they had moved that house
over, there wouldn't have been any problem. If they had moved the house to the other side of
the lot. Because basically where the house was placed when it was built, and obviously it
was built to have a 2 car garage.
Audience: I'm just saying, there was ample opportunity across the road.
I
7 �
1
n
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Watson: Oh absolutely. The land was there. The decision was made apparently to build a 2
car garage and put it on this house and put it over on that one side of the lot. I can only
guess why the developer, in his infinite wisdom decided to do that.
Johnson: They can't hold the city responsible for what the contractor does.
Watson: We'd be in deep trouble.
Johnson: ...put it in the middle or put in one side.
Watson: We absolutely don't have any kind of variance in this neighborhood huh?
Rask: No, not in this neighborhood.
Watson: I have to admit I've never heard of one.
Johnson: ...there's never been one there.
Watson: On that one we gave in the other neighborhood, where we denied the variance for
the garage, the man with the vintage cars. The Council went ahead and gave him the
variance?
Rask: Yeah, that was a one foot variance that was granted.
Senn: So we don't keep sitting here, I move that we approve it with the stipulation that there
be a 2.5 foot variance.
Watson: Maximum variance.
Senn: Maximum variance and that the city engineer approve drainage so there's no effects to
the adjoining property owner prior to construction of the garage.
Watson: Well regardless, if I were to abstain, it would automatically go to Council anyway.
Rask: Correct.
Watson: I guess go ahead and vote.
Johnson: Second, do you want to second?
10
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Watson: Sure.
Senn moved, Watson seconded to approve the variance to the side yard setback for the
addition of a garage at 960 Lake Susan Drive, with the stipulation that there be a maximum
2.5 foot variance and that the city engineer approve the drainage to insure that it does not
affect adjoining neighbors. Senn voted in favor, Johnson opposed, and Watson abstained.
Watson: Now Council can go ahead.
Rask: It will be on January 24th's Council meeting.
Watson: January?
Rask: Okay, June 24th.
Dave Bloomquist: I won't be here. I'll be about 3,000 miles from here.
Senn: Well if there's a scheduling problem, just take care of it with John. We can reschedule
you on any future agenda...
Watson: So it shows up when you can be there.
Rask: July 10th is it? The next one?
Senn: I don't know. We meet almost every Monday night anyway.
Watson: It's the 8th. Because the 5th is on a Friday.
Johnson: While you're at it John ... I'll be back and forth. I'll be back then.
VARIANCE FOR A 50 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 730 VOGEL TRAIL, JIM SELLERUD.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Watson: Well between the topography and road, it doesn't leave a lot of choices.
Senn: I'll move approval. I mean heck with it.
11