Loading...
6 Variance 6870 Nez Perce DriveCiTY OF STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 7/21/99 CCDATE: 8/9/99 CASI~ #: 99-10 VAR By: Kirchoff:v PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a -24. 20 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition. 6870 Nez Perce Drive (Lots 1839,1844-49, Carver Beach) John & Kim Warner 6870 Nez Perce Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (478-9572) PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 2000 LAND USE PLAN: RSF, Single Family Residential 12,320 sq. ft. 'N/A N: S: E: W: RSF, Single Family Residential RSF, Single Family Residential RSF, Single Family Residential PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential Available to the site A single family home with an attached one-stall garage exits on the site. Low Density Residential -6870 Nez Perce Warner Variance August 4, 1999 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE A public hearing was held on July 21, 1999 for this item. The Planning Commission unanimously approved an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon staff's recommendation. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission decision, however, the request has been modified. Instead of a 25 foot variance, the applicant is now requesting a 20 foot variance. The applicant contends that cost factors prohibit the construction of an addition at the 19 foot setback approved by the commission. Namely, the relocation of a gas meter and gas line would increase the cost of the addition. In addition, the proposed stairs to the second floor need to be situated above the existing stairs. That design would be difficult with a 19 foot setback. The staff report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdated information has been struckthrough. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-615 of the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot rear yard setback for properties zoned RSF (Attachment 2). Section 20-72(a) states that there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity (Attachment 3). BACKGROUND This site is located in Carver Beach. Carver Beach was platted in 1927. This is one of the oldest and most unique residential neighborhoods in the City. The lots are generally 20 feet in width and about 100 feet in depth (depending on topography and physical features). The lots, although originally intended for cottages or summer cabins, have been combined to accommodate single family homes. The size and shape of some ofthe lots, as well as the topography, makes locating a home or an addition difficult at times so many variances have been granted in this area. Although many of these variances were for lot area, not setbacks. Without these variances, the owner could not make a reasonable use of the property. The fact that the property is located in Carver Beach does not guarantee or warrant a variance. Many properties enjoy a reasonable use while maintaining the required setbacks. According to records supplied by Carver County, this home was constructed in 1950. However, the present one-story, two bedroom, 1,414 sq. ft. home was originally a cabin (probably constructed in the 1930s) with a living space and garage addition. When the cabin was constructed, the present setbacks (nor any setbacks) were required. The lack of required setbacks Warner Variance August 4, 1999 Page 3 at the time of cabin construction created the present nonconforming situation and this variance request. The subject property is a compilation of 7 lots and vacated right-of-way totaling 12,320 sq. ft. It is 140 feet in width (90 feet required) and 112 feet in depth (125 feet required). The table displays the setbacks maintained by the existing home. TABLE 1 SETBACKS for 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE Setback Front Side Rear Distance Required 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet Distance Maintained 54 feet (from deck) North: 25 feet South: 59 feet House: South: 16 feet North: 19 feet Garage: 5 feet The majority of the home is located in the required setback (outside the buildable area). The required 30 foot rear yard setback slices the home in half. Nearly all of the garage is located in the required setback. Since the home does not meet the current required setback, the setback is nonconforming. The applicant would like to construct a 2,040 sq. ft. (30 feet by 34 feet), 2-story addition onto an existing single family dwelling. The existing 14 foot by 28 foot garage will be demolished. The addition is proposed to maintain a $10 foot rear yard setback (the setback of the existing garage) and a 10 foot side yard setback. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a g-5 20 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a two bedroom and garage addition. The new garage space is proposed for the main level and the two bedrooms are proposed on the second story. The existing home encroaches 25 feet into a required setback, and the new addition would maintain that ...... -r^..~: .... ~*'~'~ a 10 foot setback, thus increasing the setback by 5 feet. Site Characteristics The topography of the site does not limit the location of an addition. According to the survey submitted by the applicant, there is only a 4 foot elevation change from the front to rear property line. Since the property was platted prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance, it does not meet the required depth and area requirements. (However, since it meets at least 75 percent of the ordinance requirements, the City could administratively approve the development of the site Warner Variance August 4, 1999 Page 4 with a structure that meets all setbacks.) When the original cabin was constructed, setbacks were not required. Thus, creating the nonconforming situation. 6870 Nez Perce Drive Western Front Elevation Garage/Northern Side Elevation (Garage to be Demolished and Replaced with a 2~story addition) Southern Side Elevation Warner Variance August 4, 1999 Page 5 Permitted Use This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. A single family home can be legally constructed on the site. The zoning ordinance (Section 20-1124 (2) f) requires two parking spaces, both of which shall be completely enclosed for single family dwellings. Currently, a single family dwelling with one covered parking space is present on the site. Reasonable Use The subject site is a lot of record. The buildable area (6,000 sq. ft./120 feet by 50 feet) is not constrained by the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The property owner has the opportunity to make a reasonable use of the site without any variances. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended. or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." .In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home with a two-stall garage. A variance is granted when a hardship is present. Meaning, the property owner cannot make a reasonable use of the site without relief from the ordinance. In this instance, the owner can construct living space and a garage within the buildable area, however, the location of the addition is dictated by the location of the existing home. Nonconforming Setback The existing garage maintains a nonconforming 5 foot rear yard setback. The zoning ordinance specifically states that a nonconformity shall not be increased. Specifically, the ordinance states ifa setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. The proposed addition does not meet the required 30 foot rear yard setback. An addition could be constructed in the buildable area (see Attachment 5), but is it reasonable to expect the property owner to construct an addition in front of the existing home in order to meet the required setbacks? A reasonable person would design an addition that complements the present home. A compromise needs to be devised between granting a 25 foot variance and requiring the addition to meet the required 30 foot setback. Staff understands that it would be difficult to design an addition that meets the 30 foot rear yard setback, however, every effort should be made to reduce the nonconformity of the setback. It is not reasonable to assume that since the garage maintains a 5 foot setback, a 25 foot variance will or should be granted. This addition should lessen the nonconformity of the setback, not increase it. Warner Variance August 4, 1999 Page 6 The existing living space (bedrooms, living room and kitchen) is apProximately 19 feet from the rear property line on the northern side where the addition is proposed. (The home is not situated perfectly parallel to the rear property line.) The garage area is only 5 feet. It is reasonable to expect the addition to maintain the 19 foot rear yard setback. Etaffrecaw~mends the addit/an be minimum. The Planning Commission approved an 11 foot variance to allow the applicant to construct the addition at this setback. This option will permit the property owner to construct an addition and at the same time reduce the nonconformity of the setback. Neighborhood Setbacks If staff were to determine the rear yard setbacks maintained by all the homes in Carver Beach, it is likely that the number would range from 0 to 30+ feet. Again, it is unreasonable to assume that this property warrants relief from the setback requirements simply because it is located in Crower Beach. Yard Encroachments In cases where a variance is granted, the zoning ordinance does not permit any encroachments into the setback such as eaves or bay windows. This means the 19 foot rear yard setback shall be measured from the edge of the eave on the addition (not from the foundation) to the property line. This is a condition of approval. Staff recommends denial of the 2-5 20 foot variance request but approval of an 11 foot variance for the construction ora two-story addition. The Planning Commission believed the 19 foot setback was a reasonable compromise between the applicant's request and ordinance requirements. FINDINGS The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward fi'om them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not cause a hardship, however, the location of the original cabin on the property dictates where an addition can be placed. It would be difficult to locate an addition on the site and meet the required setbacks but this in itself does not justify a 25 foot variance. This large variance would increase the Warner Variance August 4, 1999 Page 7 nonconformity and depart downward from pre-existing standards. Whereas, granting an 11 foot variance would lessen the nonconformity of a setback and still permit the applicant to construct an addition. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Although the purpose of this request is to construct an addition for a growing family, it most certainly increase the value of the site. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, Finding: The home was constructed prior to the ordinance, so the hardship is not entirely self-created. However, the fact that the applicant wishes to construct the addition 5 feet from the property line is a self-created hardship. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the 25 foot variance will allow a larger structure than what currently exists to be located closer to a rear property line than what would be normally found in a residential district, even in Carver Beach. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. However, permitting the 25 foot variance would increase the nonconformity of the setback. Warner Variance August 4, 1999 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the request for a -2-5 20 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approves variance request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor that indicates the existing and proposed elevations of the addition. 2. The rear yard setback of the addition shall be measured from the edge of the eave. 3. The existing garage shall be demolished." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-615, RSF District Requirements 3. Section 20-72, Nonconforming Uses and Structures 4. Revised Lot Survey and Proposed Addition Elevations 5. Site BuildableArea 6. Staff Revised Addition Location 7. Public hearing notice and property owners 8. Appeal Letter 9. Minutes from July 21, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting g:\plan\ck\boa\warncr 99-10 var.doc II FROM CITV OF CHRHHRSSEH 06.17 1999 CITY OF CHANHA88E! 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 5S31 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPL OWNER ADDREI TELEPI- _._. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Condltlohal Use Permit Interim Use Permit .--.-- Non..~onforming Use Permit PJanned Unit Development' --.-- Sign Perfnlt, Sign Piari Review ----- Site Plan Review' ---- Subdivialo.n* JUN ~ 1 199~ CITY OF C~ANHA,,S,S I Temp~ary Sales Permit I -- ..~ Varlet Wells __ Zonln[ __ Zonlnl; Notlflc ~ Esoro~ ar TOTAL FEI: A lin o! 411 property owners within $00 feet of the boundaries of application. ~aulld]ng material samples must be submitted with slte plan revl, 'Twenty-~lx furl size [g.[{[~ copies of the plane mu~t be aubmltte transparency for each plan sheet, '* EscroW will be required for other applications through the dave -When muhlple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall Alteration Permit 'Appeal Ordinance Amendment ltlon Sign for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" i0 CUP/SPRNACNAR/W AP/Metaa Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) property must be Included with the va. Including an 8½" X 11" reduced copy of Jpment contract charged for each application. i F{O~ CITY OF CH~NH~$S~N 06.~?.1999 ~3:$0 P. S WETLANDS PRESENT ]~.R~ENTZONING REQUESTED ZONING .... PRESiENT LAND USE DE$1ONATION __ .. REQUE,,5"TIED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR 1'HIS REQUEST _-'~© ,_X~..~,~ ~ ._..__._.YES ?, NO Thls appllcatlon must be completed In full and betypewrltten or clearly prln and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing thl~ Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements A tletermlnallon ~f completeness of the application shall be made Within ten _'toU~e of appllcat/on defldenclee shaft be mailed to the applicant within ten bu Thli~ ls Io ¢~rttfy thatl am making appl(catlon for the described action by the ]1 City requlrem(~nts with regard to thls request. This application should be ,;ha City should cOntact regarding any matter pertaining to this ~pplicatlon. I ;opy of Owner's pupflcate Certificate ol'.T~lle, Abstract of Title or purchase ag his appllc~lon and the fee owner has also signed this application. will keep rnys~f Informed of the deadlines for submission of material ~ ,mderatand that~ddltlonat fees may be charged for consulting fees, feaall uthorlzation to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I h~ ~y k~aowfedge. : 'h~ ~'y hereby flot~es the applicant that development review cannot be equlrements an¢I agency review. Therefore, the city Is notifying the ~xtenslon for de,~elopment review. Development review shaft be compl~ ~lora are a. proved by the applicant. ~'-~tuh~ of Fee Owner ~11callon Recelved on ........ Fee Paid Rece ~e appTl~nf ahould contaot eteff for e copy of the ataff report whlch wiI no! conlacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the appllcanre ed and must be accompanied by all Information appIIcatlon, you should confer With the Planning applbable to your application. ~uslnesa days of application submittal. A written ;1ness days of application. ;Ity and that I am responsible for complying with recessed In my name and I am the party whom ~ve attached a copy of proof of ownership (either eement), or I am the authorized per, on to make .nd tho progress of this application. I further ,lilly studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any ve submitted are true and correct to the best of ~mpleted within 80 days due to public hearing tnt that the 01ly requires an automatic 80 day ',ed within 120 days unless additional review at NO, be available on Friday prior to the meeting. Planning Commission, I am writing this letter for a variance request. We purchased this land in 1992. Last year we decided to add on to the house for the growth of our family. In the process we found out that the land we were maintaining for the past 7 years, we thought was ours, had a chain link fence on it (approximately 30') was not owned by us but by our neighbor in back of us. We went and talked to our neighbors about what we had just found out about the land. We asked them if they would be willing to sell us a portion of the property so we could add on. They agreed to sell 10'x 140' of the property. In our investigation we found out that it would cost us more to survey their property than to purchase the land. In all it would have cost us approximately $5,000.00. We than talked about purchasing a new home. We looked for two months but were never happy with the location of the homes. We love living in the Chanhassen community and really don't want to leave. So, the plans that we submitted last year were revised. We moved the addition up 6' and decided not to add onto the kitchen at this time. Now the plans show that we are starting the addition from the old back wall of the existing garage. Our house is a two (2) bedroom. We are asking to increase it to a four- (4) bedroom. We need this variance to add on, we are expecting a baby in July and would appreciate it if this variance would be granted in a timely manner. Thank you, John & Kim Warner 6870 Nez Perce Dr. Chanhassen, MN. 55317 (H) 474-7128 (W) 478-9572 § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (?) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note---Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597--20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. ,RSF" SINGLE.FA1KILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-61I. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80; Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 ZONING § 20-615 (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law referencc- Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be Observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lots Whore Frontage la Measured At 8etbaok Line (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. Neck I Flag Lots (4) The ma:dmum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-682 c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note~Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617--20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII. '~R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 8 20-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-60. Denial. Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-I-4(6)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-61-20-70. Reserved. DMSION 4. NONCONFORMING USES* Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any noncon- forming use, building, or structure; (3) To encourage the el/mination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. (Ord. No. 165, 8 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 20.72. Nonconforr-l-g uses and structures. GThere shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, change, or relo- structural cation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconfomnity. Q Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any singlefamily detached dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not Be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may Be added to the nonconformi_u~.zi~ of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (c) No nonconforming use shall he resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, only land uses which are permitted by this ordinance shall be allowed to be established. *Editor's note-Section 2 of Ord. No. 165, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, _-mended Div. 4 in its entirety to read as set out in 88 20-71-20-73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 contained 88 20-71-20.78, which pertained tn similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. III, 8 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. No. 163, § 1, adopted Feb. 24, 1992. Supp. No. 4 1164 ZONING § 20-73 (d) Full use of a nonconforming land use shall not be resumed if the amount of land or floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or if' the intensity of the use is in any manner diminished for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the nonconforming land use was in full operation and shall run continuously thereafter.' Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, the nonconforming land use may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the preceding twelve (12) months. For the purposes of' this section, intensity of use shall be mea- sured by hours of operation, traffic, noise, exterior storage, signs, odors, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. (e) Maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruc. tion of a nonconforming structure to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to con- tinue the nonconforming structure. (f) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a nonconforrrdng land use may be changed to another noncon- forming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the burden of' proof regarding the relative intensities of' uses. (g) If a nonconformi,~g land use is superseded or replaced by a permitted use, the non- conforming status of the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this section shall terminate. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 9,0.73. Nonconforming lots of record. (a) No variance shall be required to reconstruct a detached single.family dwelling located on a nonconforming lot of record or which is a nonconforming use if it is destroyed by natural disaster so long as the replacement dwelling has a footprint which is no larger than that of the destroyed structure and is substantially the same size in building height and floor area as the destroyed structure. Reconstruction shall commence within two (2) years of the date of the destruction of the original building and reasonable progress shall be made in completing the project. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the new dwelling and the new structure shall be constructed in compliance with all other city codes and regulations. Co) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a nonconforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and provided that the width and area measurements are at lest seventy-five (75) percent of the minimum requirements of this chapter. (c) Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single-family dwellings, ]:here shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a nonconforming lot. (d) If two (2) or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots do not meet the width and area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the Supp. No. 4 1165 'REVISED ADDITION LOCATION (10.~oOT SETBACK) .. ~ I0 0 -- hp._.___.__ohp__.___.oh __ mm__. .z~ -- z F oZ 0<~ --~.0 BUILDABLE AREA 120.00 S01~8'~'W ~ PROPOSED ADDITION ~7~ (-.'0 ..~ d_L ?~ ]. F?_ : / T,ICH -:: /-' ,,') H.fi F. O._,~ ,~ ,,lt.~ r~ s.sa fl, N.I,~ ..g-r; ~/'7 STAFF REVISED ADDITION LOCATION 0 o ~2o5 O =0 OO") .'t> CO. 0 ,; //I \ Iq' PSOPOSED ADDITION C'O NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Request for a Rear Yard Setback Variance APPLICANT: LOCATION -' Kim and John Warner 68T0 Nez Perce Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Kim and John Warner, are requesting a variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition on property zoned RSF and located at 6870 Nez Perce Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 8, 1999. I ~awama ur ~ DONALD & HAZEL ANDERSON 2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CURTIS & BRENDA BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VIRGINIA KOEHNEN 7263 PONTIAC CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRENDA & CURTIS BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CURTIS P & BRENDAK BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANGLE PRUISNER 841 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES & SUSAN ZECCO 895 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH & LORI HARRINGTON 901 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOAN & STEVEN CRONSON 801 CREE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETE & KELLY HOi_ZER 833 CREE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS RAYMOND 834 CREE DRIVE CHANHASSEN; MN 55317 FRANK ERNST 840 CREE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JULIE TAGLIA 820 IMPERIAL DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CURTIS P. BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEVIN MANION 825 LONE EAGLE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MIKE SHOBERG 834 LONE EAGLE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LAURIE & KEVIN KVAM 855 LONE EAGLE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAWN OPITZ 870 NEZ PERCE COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN A. COBB 880 NEZ PERCE COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID R. MARSH 890 NEZ PERCE COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GARY COWLES 900 NEZ PERCE COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KENNETH LUCAS 6735 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN VAVRICHEK 6801 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SHARON DOBSON 6850 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WINIFRED FYNBO-BECKMAN 6865 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KlM MURPHY 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN ALBEE 6871 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JIM KNOP 6880 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JANICE TAYLOR 6890 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JERRE JOHNSON 6941 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ®09I~ Josel 'ET O. COEY BOX 356 ~.NHASSEN, MN 55317 ..'AN MCGOVERN PENAMINT COURT :~NHASSEN MN 55317 'HYRN D. PETRICK PENAMINT COURT ~NHASSEN, MN 55317 S. CARLSON PENAMINT COURT NHASSEN. MN 55317 3Y BITELER =ENAMINT COURT ~IHASSEN, MN 55317 - & JUDY DURIE )ENAMINT COURT IHASSEN MN 55317 3N EKLUND ENAMINT COURT JHASSEN MN 55317 GREWE ENAMINT COURT IHASSEN MN 55317 S ENGESETHER :-NAMINT COURT HASSEN, MN 55317 _ARSON -'NAMINT COURT HASSEN, MN 55317 SHANE & MARY MURPHY 940 PENAMINT COURT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT & JANE MERTZ 6781 PENAMINT LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG & AMY OLSON 805 PONDEROSA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DWIGHT IMKER 810 PONDEROSA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT BISHOP 825 PONDEROSA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LEE PILLATZKI 830 PONDEROSA DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOYCE A. HOLLOWAY 845 PONDEROSA DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JERROLD PETERSON 800 WOODHILL DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NOREEN RACHOR HOFT 832 WOODHILL DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW & NICOLE SIEMENS 6780 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 slaqe'i ssa~pp¥ BART ELLSON 6800 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS/CORAZON KALLEVIG 6830 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT C. MacFARLANE 6850 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL & ELIZABETH KOHANE 6870 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THERESA A BIGAOUETTE 6890 YUMA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ZUL-2E',-1'999 08: 53 I,,.IESTS ! DE E~II.J ! Pr'lENT F'. 01 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL JULY 26, 1999 WE, JOHN & KIM WARNER OF CARVER BEACH, 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE, ARE ASKING FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. OUR HOME WAS A CABIN BUILT IN 1950. WE BOUGHT THIS HOME 7 YEARS AGO. WE ARE NOW STARTING A FAMILY AND LOVE THE CHANHASSEN AREA SO WE DECIDED TO ADD ON. EARLY THIS SUMMER WE FOUND OUT THAT THE LAND WE HAVE MAiNTAINED AND USED FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS WAS NOT OURS. OUR HOUSE AS IT SITS IS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND WE HAD TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, WE WERE ASKING FOR A 25-FOOT VARIANCE WITH A 5' SET BACK. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ON CINDY'S RECOMMENDATION APPROVED A 19-FOOT SET BACK, WHICH WILL NOT WORK. WER ARE WILLING TO MOVE THE ADDITION UP FIVE MORE FEET THAN THE ORIGINAL REQUEST TO LESSON THE HARDSHIP. A 20 FOOT VARIANCE, WITH A 10-FOOT SET BACK lS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. WE HAVE AN' EXISTING STAIR WELL GOING INTO THE BASEMENT THAT WE HAVE TO ALIGN UP WITH. USING CINDY'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD COST US MORE MONEY BECAUSE' WE WOULD NEED TO RELOCATE OUR GAS METER AND GAS LINES. WE JUST SIMPLY CAN NOT AFFORD TO DO THIS. WE HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY AND CAN NOT GET ANY MORE. WE MET ALL OUR SET BACKS BUT THE ONE IN' THE REAR. THE EXISTING GARAGE IS ONLY 5' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WITH A 20 FOOT VARIANCE WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO RELOCATE THE GAS METER OR GAS LINES AND THE ORIGINAL PLANS WOULD NOT NEED TO BE ALTERED BY MUCH. THIS IS A VERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE MANY' PROPERTIES THAT CAN NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR SETBACKS. OUR NEIGHBOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY HAS HIS DRIVEWAY 2' ON OUR PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH HAS THEIR GARAGE 4' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WITH CINDY'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE 19 FOOT VARIANCE, IT WOULD BRING. THE NEW ADDITION UP PAST THE ORIGINAL DWELLINO ABOUT 5', WHICH WOULD MAKE THE NEW ADDITION STICK OUT AND THE APPEARANCE OF TI-IE EXISTING PART LOOK ODD. THANK YOU, KIM & JOI-1N WARNER 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN. 55317 (H)612-474-7128 (W)612478-9572 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion. Kind: ...on duration or making it...? Pctcrson: Why? Kind: That we desire it to be shorter...? Peterson: Why? I'in just asking you know because I don't see a rational reason for it but. Kind: I would rather it be shorter so that we can get them on the tax rolls for the general fund. ...get our projects done. Gerhardt: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Your role tonight is to look at it from a planning standpoint and that it is consistent with the overall development of the community. Is it zoned properly? Are we meeting the guideline for the comprehensive plan? The City Council will be asking those questions of me Monday night. Duration and they really control that aspect of it. Your role tonight is just to make sure that you want to see industrial development occur in that location. That you want to see Lake Drive built. You want to see it built with a trail. Do you want to insure that the development is consistent with your comprehensive plan? That's your role tonight. As to the other questions. I'm more than willing to answer those. I just want to make one more point for Alison regarding upcoming referendums. The State has now allowed market value referendums. So if the school district with their upcoming $42 million referendum, they will capture revenue from these industrial buildings which will support that referendum. So I will not be able to capture that increment based on the increase in taxes from that referendum. That will go directly to the school district. That was not the rule several years ago. So these businesses will also support the new referendum coming up. Kind: I leave my motion the way it was. Peterson: That's good practice for Todd. Resolution #99-01: Kind moved, Burton seconded to approve the resolution declaring the program and plan for Development District No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 4-1 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole (Attachment #3). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVEl KIM AND JOHN WARNER. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Public Present: Name Address Susan Albee 6871 Nez Perce Drive Roger Beckman Contractor for Applicant John & Kim Warner 6870 Nez Perce Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of the staff?. Kind: Question. Is this an urban myth that if you maintain a property for x number of years, I thought the number was 7 years, that it's yours. Aanenson: Are you referring to the setback? Kind: No, just maintain. Blackowiak: Adverse possession? Kind: yeah. A1-Jaff: That has been debated. Kind: That's not true. I've heard that and I was just wondering. That's an urban myth? You heard a bigger number? Peterson: Other questions? How does changing that setback, or changing the variance, how does it affect their building? If at all. Al-Jaff: Their building? Peterson: Or addition. Burton: Is that your Attachment #5 and #6, is that what that shows? A1-Jaff: What happened was, and through a conversation with Cindy Kirchoff, she said that she did speak to the applicant and that it is possible to shift the addition, to maintain the exactly same setback as the rest of the home and be able to accomplish the required addition and yes, that would be the southern side elevation. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? John Warner: Good evening. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Name and address if you would. John Warner: My name's John Warner, 6870 Nez Perce Drive. This is my wife Kim. I'm not sure exactly what papers you guys have to look at. This is kind of all new to me so. What I'm basically looking for on that is where the, our addition is planned on that. There's a staircase inside of the house and there's a second level addition, that's where the stairs all on the house itself. The only feasible way of putting this addition on the house is the way that I've got it set up where I need a 25 foot variance. There's no question. I've got a gas main that comes in on that side of the house that I'd have to move the meter, the gas main. I'd have to move the staircase within the inside of the house. Financially it's really not feasible for moving it up to the, even with the house. It's just to put it honest, it's going to cost us a bundle anyway but the city does state that the residents should have a two car garage on the property. That's basically what I want to do is comply with that and the only way of putting it on is the way that it's set up on the plan. Anybody got any questions? Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Burton: Yeah I do. Can you explain the stairway thing again because I'm looking, it looks like what you proposed and then what the staff, how the staff revised it. I don't understand how a stairway wouldn't work with the staff. John Warner: On here, the back side of the garage is here. It comes into the house here. There's a staircase in the middle and that's where the staircase for the second level would have to go right to the top of that. So the stairs will enter into the living room on the house but yet they'll come out on the second addition. In order to put it up as they have it here, I'd have to move the staircase completely. Peterson: Other questions? John Warner: And one of the other purposes of going off the original wall of the back garage is because of the fact that the garage is block wall. And my intention was only to take part of the back wall of the garage off and the foundation and to incorporate it into the house. Peterson: Can you take a pencil and just draw on there the two options? Now that I'm spending · more time looking at it, I'm more confused than I was. John Warner: This is our original plan. Put the garage back. Put the staircase in. Burton: Can you draw where the stairs would be? John Warner: The stairs are right in here. They're all right in here. It's all foundation. This original garage was the original garage and about 3 ½ foot span between the side wall of the garage and the side wall of the house and that's where the staircase from the second to the basement. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Alright, thank you. Kind: Mr. Chairman I have one more question for the applicant. Did you talk with your neighbors who...the land about this encroachment? Jolm Warner: The Carlsons in the back and behind us? Yes we have spoken with them. They did intend, they did intend on selling us the 10 feet of property. The only problem is that the city requires me to have their lot surveyed and my lot resurveyed, then incorporate the 10 feet in it and just them two costs alone go outside of the range of what it's going to cost to actually purchase the piece of property. It's basically not financially worth it. Kind: And that being not possible, did you talk with them about their feelings about your addition plan and it being 5 feet off the newly found property line? John Warner: Last summer when we did this, this has been a two year ongoing thing with us trying to get this set up so we can put an addition on the house. We did speak with them because our intention was, we wanted to purchase the 30 to 40 feet'of land behind our house because we have, my wife got a permit from the city of Chanhassen to put up a chain link fence on their property and the city never told her it wasn't hers so we've maintained the property. We had the lot surveyed so we could plan our addition and found out that the property was not ours so we had contacted them and did talk with them because we wanted to purchase the whole piece of property and as far as our addition goes, they really said they didn't care along with the fact that they didn't care that I put up a, I have been putting up a 6 foot wood privacy fence around the property because we have two black labs. They're good dogs. They need a fenced yard but the Carlson's expressed some interest in the fact that the dogs seem to scare their kids when they're in a chain link fence. So we decided to put up a wood privacy fence so the dogs can't see them and they can't see the dogs. And as far as I got from them, it didn't seem to bother them. There is basically right behind the house on that corner is all woods. You can't see through it in the summertime. Peterson: Based upon what the staff has heard this evening, any additional comments? May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Sidney moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Susan Albee: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Susan Albee, 6871 Nez Perce Drive. I'm the property directly across. This is appearing to me that the nature of this request is based on more convenience than a variance hardship. There are several alternative plans to this property. Bringing the garage forward, there's ample room. Their setback on the property. Going to the south of the property, even bringing it back off the lot line would eliminate the second variance. The additional family area could be added onto that side of the house. Carver Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Beach is based a lot on weird lot configurations. If we look at a 5 foot rear yard setback, coupled with a stockade fence, that's going to give us about a 4 foot rear yard setback. Bad precedence. For the whole neighborhood. It really categorically is a starter home. You know there's only so much you can do with it and I really think an addition on this property could be accomplished without variance. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Roger Feckner: Hi, Roger Feckner, New Hope. From New Hope and I'm on the contractor working with John and Kim on their project here. If there are any questions or still confusion with the layout that has been designed here, as to where it's going to go. Why it's got to go there, I'd be happy to answer those questions from the structural standpoint and design standpoint. Peterson: Questions? So from your perspective there is zero alternatives for? Roger Feckner: From an economical standpoint and the overall design and usability of the second level, the staircase has been best located to go over the top of a masonry staircase leading to the basement at this point in time. As far as the utility tie ins go, because there is proposed up here two bedrooms and a full bath, in the living area over the garage. And for running those utilities up there, tying into the sewer system in the existing home, and getting water supplies up there, there is a channel that's going to be, a heated channel that's going to be constructed on the end of that staircase leading to the basement at this point in time so that we can effectively feed that bathroom on the second level. If that addition were pulled forward, 11 feet that's been proposed here or what staff is recommending, that's going to push that staircase to almost completely to the back of that addition. And as far as the interior layout and usability of that floor space would be greatly hindered by doing so.. Kind: Question. Could you slide...and just slide the addition forward...that second floor? Roger Feckner: No because then that would put the bathroom to the rear of the home and basically as far as the tie in capability for mainly the sewer system, the drainage for the bathroom, would be very difficult and additional cost from that standpoint. Kind: So it can be done, it's just a cost issue? Roger Feckner: It's a cost issue as well as they have a sitting deck coming off of the master bedroom in the rear comer of that unit on the, which would be the west comer I believe of that addition off the master bedroom. Northwest comer. This area here. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, motion and a second to close. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one. Burton: I guess I can venture forward Mr. Chairman. I think that it's, what the applicant requested probably doesn't technically qualify for a variance and I thought that the staff reached a fair compromise in their recommendation and I understand the applicant's cost concerns but I think it most likely could be reconfigured and could incorporate the stairway the way the staff proposed so I guess I'm inclined to follow the staff recommendations in this matter. Peterson: Other comments. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Matt. And I also would hope, they could also look at the south side of the home because there is adequate space on that side to do an addition. I do feel the 11 feet is a fair compromise. I would think that the applicants would probably want to get it surveyed and get that resolved, even if they choose not to do an addition. That's a fairly major issue when, make sure where your back yard ends and your neighbor's begins so I would certainly encourage you to look into that. I would feel more comfortable personally if that happened at my house but you know if you want to go, if you have to go back that way, if that's the only way you want~to go, then I think what you need to do is talk to your neighbors and get that worked out and get the additional land from... Otherwise I think there are opportunities for.. ,this addition forward or on the south side of the home to do something so I would go with that. And I do agree with the staff report in this case. Peterson: Anyone else? A motion. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission deny the request for a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback but approve Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with conditions 1 through 3. Kind: Second. Peterson: So moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approves Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor that indicates the existing and proposed elevations of the addition. 2. The rear yard setback of the addition shall be measured from the edge of the eave. 3. The existing garage shall be demolished. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: This item may be appealed by the applicant or any aggrieved person by appealing this decision to the city council by filing an appeal with the zoning administrator within four days after the Board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available city council agenda. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 35~000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD TO BE LOCATED AT LOT 6~ BLOCK 1 CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION (NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD), BOEDECKER COMPANY~ AMCON CONSTRUCTION~ LLC. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Kind: I have one question Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, in your report you talk about the west and north elevations and on the blueprint it's the south elevation. That's the blank wall? Al-Jaff: No, actually it is. Kind: Or is it because of the angles and stuff?. That's really hard to tell. A1-Jaff: The entire rear wall that faces the... Kind: It's hard to see on the plan what's going on. Thank you. Peterson: Sharmin, in your beginning narrative you really spoke of some design characteristics that you weren't happy with. Quality as it relates to PUD, yet a little bit at a loss as to why you're still recommending approval, rather substantive points that you aren't necessarily agreeing with yet. A1-Jaff: The condition is there to change the architecture of the building. I mean the approval is contingent upon the design and the materials changed as highlighted in the staff report. Peterson: That begs to question, are we trying to approve something prematurely? I mean my sense if we're talking about some pretty substantive changes that I don't know if I'm real...on passing onto council without seeing the changes ourselves because it is. A1-Jaff.' You can definitely table it. Require the applicant to revise the design before you'send it to council. Peterson: Any questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Name and address please. 10