6. Appeal decision of the board of adjustments and appeals 5 ft side yard variance request to build and additional garage stall, 650 Pleasant View Rd, Sam & Laurie CurnowCITY OF
y, C ANHASSEN
BAA DATE: June 12, 1995
CC DATE: June 26, 1995
CASE #: Var #95 -3
By: Rask:v
(L
1
STAFF REPORT
1
1 PROPOSAL: A Five (5) foot variance from the ten (10) foot side yard setback
requirement for the construction of an additional garage stall.
1 Z LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Reichert's Addition, 650 Pleasant View Road
1 V Q APPLICANT: Sam and Lauri Curnow
650 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
474 -0789
0.
Q
a
to
Iw
1C/)
1
m
n
r
Curnow Variance
June 12, 1995
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance, Section 20- 615(5)c. states that the minimum side yard setback shall be
ten (10) feet.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in Reichert's Addition, which consists of nine lots along the north
side of Pleasant View Road. Staff is unaware of any side yard variances in this subdivision or
in the immediate area.
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 and surrounding area. In
' addition, the applicant already has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and
two car garage.
Whereas, no single variance sets a precedent, the granting of this variance would be inconsistent
with comparable properties in the area. All the lots within this subdivision and surrounding area
have the same hardship of steep topography when it comes to locating a structure or adding onto
an existing structure. In addition, the hardship is somewhat self - created as the location of the
existing home and garage did not take into account a garage addition. This home was built in
' 1985 under the current zoning regulations and could have been located towards the center of the
lot, which would have left sufficient room in which to add onto the garage.
' 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 has reasonable use of the property with the existing
home and two car garage. All other homes within 500 feet meet the
Curnow Variance ,
June 12, 1995
Page 3 '
required side yard setback requirement. The granting of this variance
would be inconsistent with comparable properties. '
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.
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 does not appear to 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
on the north side of Pleasant View Road 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 garage was located
approximately sixteen (16) from the north property line. The lot is 96.08
feet wide at the road. This home was built in 1985 under the current
zoning regulations and could have been located towards the center of the
lot, which would have left sufficient room in which to add onto the garage.
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 proposed garage addition would encroach one foot into the drainage
and utility easement along the north lot line. Because of the steep grades
in this area, it would be difficult to add an addition onto this side of the
garage without building a retaining wall and impacting the natural drainage
of the site.
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: The proposed garage addition would not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the
public street or endanger the public safety or impair property values
Curnow Variance
June 12, 1995
Page 4
because the addition would meet the required front yard setback and would
' be approximately one hundred (100) feet from the nearest structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS UPDATE
On June 12, 1995 the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the
variance appeal for Sam and Lauri Curnow at 650 Pleasant View Rd. The Board denied the
variance appeal on a unanimous vote. On June 15, 1995 staff received a letter indicating that
the applicants wish to appeal the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision. The applicants
were not present or represented by anyone at the public hearing.
The adjoining property owners to the northwest were present at the meeting and expressed
concern over the proposed garage addition. The addition would partially obstruct their view of
the lake. In addition, the adjoining neighbors questioned the location of the building in relation
to the property line. The neighbors believe that the addition may be closer than five (5) feet
from the property line. Staff indicated that a survey showing the proposed garage addition would
be required prior to issuance of a building permit. A concern was also raised over possible
drainage problems, because the proposed garage addition would be located at the bottom of a 28
percent slope. The variance, if granted, would leave only five (5) feet in which to divert storm
water around the structure.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies the five foot front yard variance request based on the findings presented
in the staff report. More specifically, the City 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."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Board of Adjustment and Appeals minutes dated June 12, 1995
2. Application dated May 14, 1995
3. Written Description of Variance Request
Curnow Variance
June 12, 1995
Page 5
4. Written Justification for Variance
5. Survey of Lot 4, 650 Pleasant View Rd.
6. Elevations of proposed garage addition
7. Plat of Reichert's Addition
8. Aerial photo
1
n
r
C
L'
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
June 12, 1995
Page 2
A FIVE (5) FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE TEN (10) FOOT SIDE YARD SE TBACK
REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL GA RAGE
STALL SAM AND LAURI CU NOW.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Johnson asked if the applicant was present.
The applicant was not present.
Chairman Johnson asked if their was anyone in the audience who would like to comment on
the proposed variance.
Jerry Frederick, 670 Pleasant View Road, the neighbor located directly to the northwest,
expressed concern over the proposed garage addition. The addition would partially obstruct
their view of the lake. In addition, the adjoining neighbor questioned the location of the
building in relation to the property line. Mr. Frederick believes that the addition may be
closer than five (5) feet from the property line.
John Rask indicated that a survey showing the proposed garage addition would be required
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Frederick also raised a concern over possible drainage problems with the garage addition
being located at the bottom of a 28 percent slope. The variance, if granted, would leave only
five (5) feet in which to divert storm water around the structure
The Board concurred with the findings presented in the staff report.
Watson moved, Senn seconded that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals deny the
five foot front 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 request, if approved, would create a standard that deviates from
surrounding properties."
I All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN '
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION '
APPLICANT: W -w M "' OWNER: rn E Lc&%, Curnc,_o I
ADDRESS: 5rZO 4R4• ADDRESS: (� Ptt- ����,.� & I
�� ,•,.. MN 55311 _C ,�.. N IQ 55 317
TELEPHONE (Daytime) _IA "3M4 TELEPHONE: 4 44 — 0 bA
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.
Variance
3.
Interim Use Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Non - conforming Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP /SPR/VACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10.
Subdivision
TOTAL FEE $ - 75 00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8'h" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
' PROJECT NAM -
LOCATION
. -V &, MN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
u
PRESENT ZONING 1(:);. n&e
REQUESTED ZONING 5 Pr 451-4
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 4"a
' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION C
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewri&rh or clearly printe nd 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.
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.
' I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
/�V u,��JaD 5 a -
��
Signature of Applica t Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
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.
Written Description of Variance Request
May 9, 1995
We are requesting a 5' offset on the north property line of 650 Pleasant View road. This
would allow us to add an additional 11' on the existing garage to accommodate for
parking & storage.
Written Justification for Variance
Due to the extreme slope of the property and the existing position of the house on this
property it allows only one suitable place to add on for additional garage space. The
existing house is located just 30' off Pleasant view road. Pleasant view rd. traffic is
increasing every year due to all the new home construction in the area. This road is not
suitable for parking due to the limited with & the high traffic volume. By granting us a
5' offset it would be most beneficial to existing conditions and would cause no crowding
or land impairments to surrounding property.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter
sc t i'y -E LQ LIP
/,
�T9 -o7g
42 01 O p N 1
I
11 6- 90
i
r-
� J
-
t
& UT1 PE N
j DRASNAG M EN'T PER O
I 5 EASE
z
0)
C�
0
N N
4
co .�
N
00
�J
rn
i
J
—J
�{S
P�
Z
x
Ul
Co
O N � \• _ "�• 2772 N
1° \ q� j5p0•
as • qa
(31 g� —' "� 16.0 0 14.0 tc)ol,I., Z
-_ �j� N
iv * PROP 0 v M O US W
\ H 90 1,6 (31 -P
X
o qty 5 t JNU1
n` W 80 o _ 2j -P
j
cz
A c:�. On p GAR o 5p0 -•�- qj0' w N
SCALE: 1'INCH = 30 FEET
W
w
� � � _ _ _ x 9 09
2 �' ►5.3 6 ° l
9 � •' x11q; � c�z
t7 2
• 90$ R= 3 N�
" ,-Z
ul
t-A
i 'I i � s
1 I -73
� �il; i t -•��I
1
1 III. �
1 '�
II
. I
1 �'
1 W � I�
1 ��� I I ,
III J-4
wl
� � 11 j
w uti
01
C 4
4- - P 2 �Cll lvc"So 5.40
8824 9 -\
0 3 '-5-5
11 0
C.
ZZI)
\ 21)
ei
4
Ll
0
0 1 S 5
- \qo
<
A -
B
3 \0
-7
tA
,
<
0
L) 8
00, Oise)
IV
Sc/
I N
HAP
< 00'
0
C .) -
8
1, 4
/11D
19
D
IK
53 S*
boo
C 0 Y / � . V 7
v )5 20 - A
I n 0 57 144
0/ /0 16. 101P
QHW \ )t l I s-21 / 4
50 $10 0 %y 01w- C)
17 N 896-3 * S jv / 2
54
;D
18 9
cr , 0
60
9 UP i \ ,P 23
C . ,
19
o v
Sp 2 4
<
25
. A"
q T urc� ��3 Y r °3 _`'
'r
4
�A �
rl�
71
-KF
�� -�- `.�"� '`' :- � __ ---jam= �`. � �