The URL can be used to link to this page

3. David Bramer, 7270 Conestoga Court: Appeal Side Yard Setback Variance.CITY OF y, CH NHASSEN BOA DATE: 3/25/96 CC DATE: 4/22/96 CASE #: 96 -1 VAR By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A One (1) Foot Side Yard Setback Variance Request for the construction of a garage addition. LOCATION: 7270 Conestoga Court, Lot 4, Block 2, Chanhassen Vista 3rd APPLICANT: David Bramer 7270 Conestoga Court 0 0 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 '' (612) 519 -6310 Z Q �J �d ,a 1 1 1 1, 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: PUD -R, Planned Unit Development - Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 11,930 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 - RSF, Powers Blvd., Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is level at the location of the proposed addition. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Bramer Variance ' April 8, 1996 Page 2 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ' On April 8, 1996, the City Council considered an appeal of the Board of Adjustment's decision to deny a one (1) foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a garage addition at 7270 Conestoga 'Court. The Council tabled action on this item to give tho applicant an opportunity tc ' obtain a letter of support from the neighbor to the south (the adjoining neighbor on the side of the proposed addition). Council indicated that they would take this letter into consideration when voting on the variance appeal. Mr. David Bramer submitted a petition signed by fifteen neighbors ' supporting the variance request, which includes the neighbor to the south (7280 Conestoga Court). See attached petition. t BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS UPDATE ' On March 25, 1996, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the variance appeal of Mr. David Bramer. The Board voted to deny the one foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a garage addition based on the findings presented in the staff report. ' In addition, the Board expressed concern over granting variances in PUD Zoning Districts where the developer was granted reduced lot sizes and widths causing all lots to have similar hardships. The Board noted that variances should only be granted in situations where there is a unique ' hardship. Granting a variance in the absence of a unique hardship could set a precedent making it difficult to deny other variances in similar situations. u u Following the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting, staff reviewed the existing setbacks within 500 feet of the subject property to determine if other properties have similar setbacks. A review of the area shows the following setbacks: Location Existing Side Yard Setbacks 7261 Conestoga Court* 7271 Conestoga Court 7281 Conestoga Court 7291 Conestoga Court 7301 Conestoga Court* 7300 Conestoga Court 7290 Conestoga Court 7280 Conestoga Court 7260 Conestoga Court 7250 Conestoga Court 7240 Conestoga Court 740 Conestoga Trail 10 foot setback 10 and 13 foot setbacks 15 and 15 foot setbacks 14 and 22 foot setbacks 24 foot setback 15 foot setback 12 and 12 foot setbacks 12 and 13 foot setbacks 10 and 31 foot setbacks 10 and 16 foot setbacks 15 and 20 foot setbacks 11 and 20 foot setbacks Bramer Variance April 8, 1996 Page 3 730 Conestoga Trail 720 Conestoga Trail 721 Conestoga Trail 10 and 25 foot setbacks 10 and 18 foot setbacks 10 and 10 foot setbacks Existing setbacks on the applicant's property, 7270 Conestoga Court 7270 Conestoga Court 19 and 19 foot setbacks * Indicates corner lot, only one side lot line would be impacted for a garage addition Upon review of existing setbacks, several lots have adequate room for garage/home additions, while others are severely limited in area in which to construct additions. The varying setbacks within the neighborhood creates similar hardships on other lots. Staff maintains that the applicant has reasonable use of the property, and that no unique hardships exist that would warrant the granting of a variance. If Council determines that a one foot variance is appropriate in this situation, staff recommends the Council adopt the conditions of approval listed under the recommendation section of the staff report (see page 6). 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 1986, the City Council approved the Chanhassen Vista Planned Unit Development for 126 single family lots on 70 acres of land. The property was rezoned from R -la, Agricultural Residential to PUD -R. The lot sizes range from 11,700 to 59,500 square feet with an average lot size of 16,368 square feet. There are 68 lots under 15,000 square feet and 58 lots 15,000 square feet and over. Standard single family residential lot size in the City is 15,000 square feet. A PUD was approved to promote the clustering of smaller lots to preserve the existing natural features of the site. No variances for structural setbacks were granted with the PUD; therefore, the standard setbacks apply to this subdivision. L �l Bramer Variance ' April 8, 1996 Page 4 r ANALYSIS Staff is recommending denial of the variance as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 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. A blanket variance was granted for certain lots along Frontier Trail for reduced front yard setbacks. However, all lots in this PUD zoning district meet minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet. Whereas, no single variance sets a precedent, the granting of this variance would be inconsistent with comparable properties in the area. All other properties maintain the minimum setback requirements. These lots were created, by the developer, knowing that the size of the lot would dictate the size of the home and attached garage. The current owner should have been aware of these limitations when purchasing the property. If the Council approves the variance, staff has provided conditions of approval under the recommendation section of the report. The variance would permit a 9 foot setback along the south property line. The residence to the south is located at 12.6 feet from the property line. Therefore, a 21.6 foot separation would be maintained between structures. Because of the elevation difference between structures, the garage addition would not be overly imposing on the property to the south. The variance, if approved, should not negatively impact light or air to adjacent properties. 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: 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 neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing 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 proliferation of variances as other properties have two car garages on narrower lots. Bramer Variance April 8, 1996 Page 5 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. 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 19.0 feet from the south property line. An 80 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 property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger 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 22 feet from the neighboring home and nine feet from the lot line. The 22 foot separation should not negatively impact light and air to the neighboring property. J I Bramer Variance ' April 8, 1996 Page 6 r L L RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the one (1) foot side yard variance request based on the findings presented in the staff report. More specifically, the Council 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." If the City Council approves the one (1) foot variance, staff recommends that the Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the one (1) foot side yard variance request based on the following findings: 1. The garage addition should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties as appropriate separations will be maintained between structures. 2. The proposed garage addition will not substantially impact light or air to adjacent properties. The following conditions shall be attached to the variance approval: 1. The applicant shall provide a survey at the time of permit approval showing the garage addition and proposed grading. 2. Existing drainage patterns shall be maintained and a swale created between the garage and property line to divert stormwater towards the street. 3. An escrow fee of $50.00 shall be paid for recording of the variance. 4. Appropriate erosion control measure shall be used during construction and until the area is re- vegetated." 7 Bramer Variance April 8, 1996 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition signed by neighbors 2. Application 3. Written description of variance request 4. Survey showing proposed garage addition 5. Elevations of existing home with proposed garage 6. Letter requesting appeal 7. City Council minutes dated April 8, 1996 7 I r PETITION FOR A ONE FOOT VARIANCE I, David Bramer, residing at 7270 Conestoga Court in Chanhassen: Vista Lot #4 Block #2, have applied for a one foot variance on the south side of my lot. The purpose of this variance is to build a ten foot addition to my garage. I've been asked by the city council to verify that my neighbors do not oppose my building this addition outside of the ten foot easement, which would leave me nine feet instead of ten. If you have no objections to this, please sign below with your name, address and phone number. Na e h ��} r Address Phone 7 -dEld C :s it - 71 r 7ZeZ � � C4 �o 7 s CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED .PR 15 1996 CHANMA00r-N PLANNING DEPT APPLICAN R'`J `� Q�� 41� ADDRESS: ;xQ O OW NER ��_") ADDRESS —�� TELEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE: I ;�� Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE , CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Variance 11 -_. (612) 937 -1900 Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment APPLICAN R'`J `� Q�� 41� ADDRESS: ;xQ O OW NER ��_") ADDRESS —�� TELEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE: I ;�� Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW /Easements Interim Use Permit Variance 11 -_. 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/VAC/VAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) _ Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list 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. u s�z st be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of tr - -- ** 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. i PROJECT.NAME ' - 7 :Q L •C ATION ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' TOTAL ACREAGE R�CZo - �S 1 :� WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO ' PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING �`� \1�R- �arc_� ®�' �•��c o� \mac Q�R� �o�� ' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED 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 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. ' 1 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 its 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 Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on 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. Date Date CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN REF PLANNING DEPT N� THIS LETTER IS TO REQUEST VARIANCE AT LOCATION 7270 CONESTOGA Cl CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOT 4 BLOCK 2 CHANHASSEN VISTA 3RD ADDITION THE THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 1FT BY 30 FT VARIANCE ALONG THE SO SIDE OF LOT TO ADD A 10FT WIDE BY � FT DEEP ADDITION TO GARAGE THE GARAGE SPACE WOULB USED TO INCREASE STORAGE AND HOUSE TWO ANTIQUE VEHICLES THAT WERE P�RCHASES BY MY GRANDFATHER AND HAVE BEEN PASED DOWN TO ME N� THE VEHICLES ARE A 1930 FORD MODEL A 2 DOOR SEDAN AND A 1937 m� JOHN DEER MODL B TRACTOR THE SPACE WILL ALSO BE USED FOR FUTURE FAMILY GROWTH THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED FOR BUlSNESS OR ANY OTHER PROFIT !!!! ! THE STRUCTURE ALSO WILL N� _ NOT IMPARE VIEW OR INCREASE A FIRE OR SAFETY PROBLEM THAT I AM AWARE OF AT THIS TIME THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN - CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST N� SI�CERLY DAVID D BRAMER 7270 CONESTOGA CT CHANHASSEm MN 55317 ' 949-0582 B 5l9-6310 IT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. ' LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601- 73rd Aven;s ;? r.;,. 560 -3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 #III'I ryor8 (IIrdifttatP � 1 — ' Chaim IT I� t Ii \ aScl.6 d_ 1 1 INVOICE N0 �Z- 3708 Zp -RpVED F. B. NO. dno -U ' SCALE 1 - 70' 0— DENOTES IRON - t - 'T 'Z FW cy+�tE N' '12I�v Bcrcz. 1 31.0 I `i i x433 l RT% rG Oi N 24-'4. --- - - - - -- ; �' O N I I v v - I 5 � - 4 P_E5t DE JGE ( a- O 23'S" N ,. O¢I V;5— I O `rl`i.I A i D rop l-5 �r LT E.ktTti`f' �GC� N° �2b0 Signed Raymond A. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 6743 /rl k z 1 - 1 1 KOOr- AS 4� - .......... 6� 1 . 1 1 &ocl< a Chap -� -- _ -- i 4115 31 Bi ll j - ,1 - j c v A7 11A // - / /_,-, z W.!r -j3�j I X � 1 iYl 3:� , nd )t7" Ill I, _�fMrl�4 w. !ter f;�■ 1 1 1 1 1 / 8 "_ � - o �• � � CFA � �L � Y,4 ��.1 , -- - ML 15011,Z H4 zZ,a4A ��i,FiGAT /O�JS f�P CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DR N� CHAmHASSEN MN 55317 C/O JOHN RASK PLANNING DEPT N� �OHN R4SK ��*�� r��nn�s� l AM WRITING �HIS LETTER IN REGUARDS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS ~~ HEARING THE 1 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON MY PROPERTY LISTED AT 7270 CONESTOGA CT CHANHASSEN VISTA 3RD LOT 4 BLOCK N� 2, I FEEL THE BOARDS REJECTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE SErBACK I� INCOR�EC3 I AM NOT ASKING FOR AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT I ALSO HAVE PROPERTIES DO NOT HAVE THE SPACE ON N� T�ERE LOTS THAT I HAVE ALSO l HAVE TALKED WITH OTHER FAMILIES Om OR AROUND MY HOM� AND HAVE FOUND NO RESISTANCE O� OPPOSAL TO ME BUTLD[NG THE GARAGE ADDITION WITH A 1 FOOT VARIA�CE SO AT THIS TIME IWOU�D LIKE TO REQUEST AN APPEAL N� HEAelNS WlTH THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCAL THANK, YOU FOR YOUR TIrA E IN THIS MATTER DAVID D BRAMER m� O��ER 7270 CONESTOGA CT C�A��ASSEN MN 55317 — * 9�9-0582 N� B 519-6310 ��*�� r��nn�s� APR 8�D 0910�� " = ..~~ ~~ CITY {}FC 'LW N� L City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a storm water quality /quantity charge of $768.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to final plat recording. 3. No landscape materials shall be planted within the northerly 25 feet of Lots 1 and 2. This area is reserved for future stormwater ponding. 6. Type I erosion eo;itrol fence shall be installed along the front of Lots 1 and 2 during site grading and a rock construction entrance employed and maintained until truck hauling operations are completed. 7. Lots 1 and 2 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hook -up charges and Lot 2 will be subject to a water connection charge. These charges shall be collected per City Ordinance at time of building permit issuance. 8. Drainage swales shall be designed and constructed along the east line of Lot 2 and the west line of Lot 1 to maintain drainage between the houses to Highway 7. 9. Full park and trail fees be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of building permit application. 10. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to excavation or any construction on the site. The tree fencing may follow the proposed erosion control fence as drawn on the grading plan received by the city March 1, 1996. Erosion control fence shall also be extended along the east, west, and south sides of the lot at the grading limits. 11. The applicant shall preserve the 20 inch maple located on Lot 1 and consider transplanting the four pines within grading limits along the eastern property line of Lot 2. 12. The applicant shall plant 8 trees on site. Lots 1 and 2 shall receive two trees each in the front yard. The remaining 4 trees may be planted anywhere on site outside of drainage and utility easements. All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist who abstained, and the motion carried. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS; REQUEST FOR A 1 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION; 7270 CONESTOGA COURT, DAVID BRAMER. John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On March 25th of 1996 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the variance request of Mr. David Bramer. The Board to deny the 1 foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a garage addition based on the findings presented in the staff report. In addition the Board expressed concern over granting the variance in the PUD zoning district where the developer was granted to reduce lot size and width, causing all lots within the subdivision to have a similar hardship. The Board noted that a variance should only be granted in situations where there does exist a unique hardship. I don't know if this was included in your packet or it may have been left out but this shows the approximate location of the proposed garage addition. It is a 10 foot wide addition. As you can see there's currently 19 feet between the home and the property line, needing a 1 foot variance. Staff is recommending denial of the variance as the applicant has reasonable use of the existing house and garage. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. 26 City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do we have any questions of John at this time? Okay, is Mr. Bremar here? David Bramer: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come forward? David Bramer: Please. John Rask: If I could add one more thing here while he's coming up. I did receive a letter today from Mr. Eric Johnson, 7271 Conestoga Court stating his support of Mr. Bramer's addition. It states, I see no negative impact on the neighborhood resulting from this plan. I find the thought of a 3 car garage to be much more aesthetically pleasing than a large shed or other out building. Dave has always demonstrated pride in ownership and meticulous care of his property. I have no doubt in my mind that any project that he undertakes would turn out well, signed Eric Johnson. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. David Bramer: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of Council. My purpose here tonight is to request for an appeal. Just to let you all know, I built this house and a first time homebuyer. Had no knowledge of a variance into the setback. I moved into, this was my first home. I did not have any knowledge of what I was going to do in the future. Any plans. Ignorant to the fact of variances or how much ... build on. I never requested or understood what the builder was telling me. What consisted in a survey. The research I've done since the appeal hearing has been trying to find other ways to make this smaller and still accommodate to what my needs are that I'm requesting for. I have searched and looked for, to go into the 9 feet to try and accommodate it. One of the vehicles, I'm not sure if you've read my letter of intent, is a tractor that the axles are a 7 foot 6 inch spread between the two outside edges which, with a 7 foot door, or even an 8 foot door, that only leaves me about 4 inches on each side to put the existing brick to match the facia on the house. Appearance wise I feel it's very unacceptable for myself and /or my neighbors. When I built this to look as good as the rest of the house, that is maintain the equal settings within the neighborhood. I've done also inspections of houses looking at what my neighbors have for room. Garage additions, so on and so forth and I'm not seeing where they could have the room to make their houses, most of my neighbors house plans are at least 300 to 500 square foot bigger than my house. If I would have known this, I would have moved the house over and then I could get the 12 foot that I really needed when I built the house, but I was young and ignorant. I know an awful lot of people that have been there and I'm hoping that you'll understand that I did not know and am guilty of that fact of not being to ask the right questions when I built the house. I don't know if you have any questions for me but I'd be happy to answer anything. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you David. David Bramer: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: We'll see if we have any questions. Any questions of David? Steve? Councilman Berquist: I can sure empathize but I don't think I've got any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. 27 J J City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996 ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question of staff. You said this originally was a PUD project. Were the lot sizes reduced as part of the agreement? John Rask: Correct. Yeah, they ranged from approximately 11,700 to 60,000 on the large end. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So are you working with pretty tight? ' John Rask: Yeah. Some of the lot widths go down to about 80. Mayor Chmiel: His lot is probably the smallest. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I went out and took a look at it this weekend. David Bramer: I still have about 22 feet between my house and my neighbor's house though. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. No further questions. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: No, I don't have any questions. ' Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: There's really no way to offset the garage, a little bit one way or the other as far as I could ' see to give him the width that he needs. Isn't it true basically in our, you know with our PUD ordinance, one of the purposes of it is to give a little more leeway on the breakdowns of interior lines for setback and things like that? t John Rask: I don't know if, historically we have allowed some reduced setbacks in the Meadows and the Woods at Longacres. However, we did have a condition in there that said they had to maintain 20, whether they wanted to go closer on one and further on another lot. However, they worked out...I'm not aware of any ' really granted_.. Councilman Senn: ...precedent setting if it's done, is that what I'm hearing? ' John Rask: Well no variance sets a precedent but it certainly could open up the doors for further variances. ' Councilman Berquist: Which one of these, you know 7270 so 7260 and 80 are your neighbors. David Bramer: Right. ' Councilman Berquist: Which one is on the garage side? David Bramer: That would be Pam and Scott Janan 7280. ' Councilman Berquist: And they've got a 15 foot setback on the side. 1 28 City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996 David Bramer: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Okay. David Bramer: I was going to try to get an example set up to get my other neighbors to do this. 'Councilman Berquist: No, that's not where I was going. I had the strange idea that if it was on the 31 foot setback, perhaps that we could strike a deal to buy a couple feet of land or who knows what. David Bramer: I have two vehicles that have been passed down in the family and the oldest one has been here 66 years and I have to find a home for it. Which means I need to find a home for it with me. It's been passed down now through 4 people and I'd like to keep it there. These things are very important to me so I'm asking, not only asking but begging for your understanding. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? It's really hard. Councilman Senn: Yeah, from any perspective you look at it, I mean it really seems kind of silly to be arguing over a foot, especially within a PUD and that's where my, I guess primary concern comes back to, you know I look at it from a PUD perspective and it seems fine. Who cares? I mean we make deals within PUD's. But then I'm hearing this kind of opens the door to a whole bunch of people coming in asking for the same deal and that's the part that bothers me and I don't know quite how to resolve it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: See and I'm coming from a different perspective. It is a PUD so concessions, a lot of concessions have already been made. Councilman Senn: Which cause the internal problems which just carries the concept of the PUD further which — deal. I mean that's what PUD's are... I don't know. If the house was a foot difference well then. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's right. Councilman Senn: Is the letter from the neighbor on the garage side or on the other side? John Rask: Across the street. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any neighbors from the neighborhood here this evening? David Bramer: If I may add. I did speak with one neighbor on the, on my garage side. Mayor Chmiel: Could you come up so we can get that on the mic please. David Bramer: Sure. I did speak with the neighbor on the garage side, both husband and wife, and they welcome it very much. The only comment I had from Mr. Janan was if you hurt my grass, you get it fixed. That was about all he said. I talked to him about this about a year ago is when the conversation came into play When we were talking about... storage space for this at this time. And I didn't know how I was going to take action on it. But I have, you know over get togethers and that with the neighborhood, I have mentioned it and nobody's ever opposed ... and every one of the neighbors that live up and down my street as well have been aware that I came before the Board of Appeals and as well that I'm here tonight. 1 J 29 City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996 Councilman Senn: Do you think you can get a letter from him? Supporting the project. David Bramer: Well I'm sure I could. I'm guessing I could. I can't speak for my neighbors, and since they've known it, you know if they had any objections, I feel if they had any objections they would be here to object to it Councilman Senn: Yeah, we can't always assume that, plus everything, if he gave you a letter of support, maybe it gives us a little something extra to hang our hat on that, you know... David Bramer: Sure. Well if I may. Councilman Senn: I'm talking from a personal perspective. I'm not speaking for the Council. It just seems that you know, in my mind, I thought maybe we'd take and table the thing and see if you can get it. If you can get it, then it maybe becomes an easier issue. If it doesn't in the rest of the Council's mind, then I guess I'm just treading water. David Bramer: Certainly. Well if you'd like, I had brought photographs and I'd be more than happy to show them to you. Councilman Senn: No, I've gone out and looked at it. I've seen it. David Bramer: You haven't seen the vehicles that are going in. If anybody would like to see it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, these vehicles he did show. Why don't you just show that to Council. David Bramer: Okay, sure. These may be irrelevant... Mayor Chmiel: Come on up a little closer. David Bramer: That's me at about 9 years old. That's my wedding and I mean these, like I say, they've been in the family for years and I restored both of them from the dead. Neither one of them ran. And actually you might want to look at the tractor. You'll find that that was in the paper, the Chanhassen Villager. I worked with the Dimler corn field out here with that. So it's seen the streets of Chanhassen already. Councilman Mason: I think Mark's idea is something worth considering. Quite honestly I will admit, and you know each case is different but I worry about these kinds of variances. Not in your case necessarily but it certainly does tell everybody in that area, well you gave this guy a foot. I get 3 feet. You know or I want 5 feet or whatever. But I guess I am not quite honestly going to say how I would vote one way or the other but if all the neighbors around you were to sign off, it certainly would not hurt your cause in my view. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could do is just table this item for 2 weeks and see what happens and then have it come back to Council within those 2 weeks. Okay, would there be a motion to table? Councilman Senn: I'll move to table. Councilman Mason: Second. 30 City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the appeal of the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for a request for a 1 foot side yard setback variance from the south property line for construction of a garage at 7270 Conestoga Court, David Bramer. All voted in favor and the motion carried, SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 EAST OF MAR BOULEVARD ON WEST 79TH STREET, TIRES PLUS GROUPE INC John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Tires Plus, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a second wall mounted sign on the west elevation of the future Tires Plus building. On February 21st of this year the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the variance request for the second wall mounted sign. The Commission recommended, by unanimous vote, to deny the variance based on the findings presented in this staff report. The commission concurred with staffs analysis that the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with the wall sign on the south elevation and a monument sign. A little background on this one. The Council, on November 13th approved site plan for the Tires Plus building subject to 13 conditions. Condition 4 stated that signage only be permitted on the south elevation and must comply with city code. No panel signs will be permitted. Separate sign permit will be required. What the applicants are requesting here, this is what they're proposing on the south elevation. This does meet Code. The sign ordinance concerning wall mounted signs. We think the wording Tires Plus plus a display message here, low warehouse prices, fast work and service. And then this is the west elevation where they're requesting a second wall mounted sign. With that, staff is recommending denial of the variance as we feel the applicant has a reasonable use of the property and a reasonable opportunity to advertise with the existing signs. The wall sign and the monument sign. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions of John. I guess we don't have any questions of John. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and your address and your representation. Ron Fiscus: My name's Ron Fiscus. I'm here with Yaggy Colby Associates from Rochester representing Tires Plus. We appreciate the fact that at your last meeting you were able to postpone this until tonight. We also appreciate even more the fact that the weather was a little more conducive to getting here ... Mr. Jim Diamond from the Cardinal Development people could be with us tonight. Jim is the one who worked on the real estate side of putting this project together. What I'd like to do is just take a moment to review where all we've been with this project and how we've gotten to this point. Originally Tires Plus had optioned a piece of property across the street from where they're proposing to go now. Highway 5 here and Market Boulevard in this location. A site west of Chanhassen... was a piece of property that was originally optioned. And as we talked with staff about the challenges that we would be facing developing on that site, the primary challenge was that wetland. A very small portion of that site was available for development, and as talked through with staff and talked about the challenges they were facing on developing this four lot site to the north, and the small amount of wetland the existed there, the arrangements for exchanging properties for the right to develop on the back end of the PUD seemed to make a great deal of sense. Made particularly more sense to go on the back end of that as we looked at some of the signage that had been allowed elsewhere in the community. Of course Tires Plus first preference was to be on the front side but as we were working with Todd and Kate and understood some of their concerns, and as we looked at signage that had been allowed elsewhere, we thought that if we could get signage on three sides of this building, then that lot would work out fine. As the staff report suggests, the staff did advise us of the three, signs on three sides would not be permitted. As we went a little bit further with that, it was suggested to us that the appropriate way dealing with the site plan approval, dealing with the subdivision approval, and dealing with the desire to have signs on multiple faces, the appropriate way to deal with the sign issue was one of a point with a variance. So as we went through the site plan approval process, this was an 1 31 1