Loading...
5 Appeal/Garage Addition/Brown CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MarIœI Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Pf1one: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Butldlng Inspections Pf1one: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park I Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Cou~er BoulevaId Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952227.1404 Planning I Nalural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 PubtlcWorks 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . ~ " . ..^,._~. "''''- .? MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: o~. Julie Hoium, Planner I DATE: March 4, 2002 RE: Stuart and Tanya Brown Variance-1420 Heron Drive The Planriing Commission reviewed and denied this variance request on February 19,2002. The applicant's are appealing the Planning Commission decision. The City 01 Chanhassen . A growing cnmmunity with clean lakes, Quality schools, a charming downtown, Ihrtving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A Q.,t place 10 live, work. and p~v. PC DATE: 2/19/02 CC DATE: 3/11/02 REVIEW DEADLINE: 3/18/02 CASE#: 02-1 Var. By: Grove PROPOSAL: A request for a seven (7) foot variance from the thirty (30) foot front yard setback for the construction of a third stall garage addition. LOCATION: 1420 Heron Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (Lot 3, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West Third Addition) APPLICANT: Stuart and Tanya Brown 1420 Heron Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 368-3895 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential ACREAGE: 20,639 square feet (.46 acres) DENS:ITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a third stall garage addition Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. . LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. v Esse Rd olk r Burlwoo 4 Rosewood 5 Powers Place Lak "t .. .. - a H Brown Variance March 11, 2002 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-615(5)(a) requires a 30 foot front yard setback for all properties in the RSF district. Section 20-908(3) states that the front yard setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provided, however, that the remaining two yards will meet the side yard setbacks. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On February 19, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. By a unanimous vote the variance was denied. The Commission concluded the applicant has a reasonable use of the site and a hardship was not demonstrated. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny the front yard setback variance. This report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all updated information has been struck through. BACKGROUND The existing home was constructed in 1990 as part of Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition. Located on the northwest comer of Ibis Court and Heron Drive, the subject property is a comer lot that has two front yards for setback purposes. The existing house and attached garage meet all required setbacks with a 12% impervious surface coverage. The applicant proposes to construct a 14'5" x 22'4" garage addition onto the east side oftheir existing garage. The existing garage is located approximately 35 feet from Ibis Court and 30 feet from Heron Drive. The proposed addition will encroach 7 feet into the front yard setback abutting Ibis Court. ANALYSIS The applicants are requesting a variance from the front yard setback for the construction of a third stall garage addition. The home currently has a two stall attached garage. This proposed addition extends seven feet into the front yard setback. - ---~- Brown Variance March 11, 2002 Page 3 Staff does not believe a hardship has been demonstrated. The applicants contend that a third stall addition would blend in and be consistent with surrounding properties in the area. A survey was conducted to determine the size of garages within 500 feet of the applicants' property. As shown on Attachment 4 out of 66 M+ lots approximately 18 :J+ (27 ~%) have a three-car garage while the remaining 48 HG (73 +3%) have a two-car garage. All the three car garage structures meet the city's setback requirements. A large majority of comparable lots in the applicant's neighborhood have two-car garages. It was mentioned in the application letter that alternate options were considered. The applicants considered adding on to the rear of their garage. This proved to be too costly and complicated. In addition, constructing a shed in the back yard to store equipment (snow blower, lawnmower, bikes, etc.) was considered. However, in addition to being inconvenient to access, the applicant polled neighbors who agree that the proposed addition is more desirable than a detached shed (see Attachment 1). A hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. 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 a RSF zoning district applies, a reasonable use is a single family home with two covered parking spaces. A single-family home with an attached two-stall garage is present on the site. The inability to construct a third stall within the required front yard setback does not constitute a hardship. In their appeal letter, the applicants state that they face a unique hardship because their property is a corner lot. They contend that when setbacks are applied, over 71 % of their corner lot is unbuildable. This calculation was measured from the curb. It includes the required setbacks in addition to the public right-of-way off of Heron Drive and Ibis Court. Staff made the same calculations, subtracting the public right-of-way, and came up with a total of approximately 53-54% unbuildable. In terms of yard regulations, corner lots have the same amount of setback requirements as the average lot with only one street frontage. Both types of lots have two 30' setbacks and two 10' setbacks. The difference is the setback configuration, or the placement of setback restrictions on the lot. The average lot has a 30' front yard setback, and a 30' rear yard setback. Corner lots, such as the applicants, has two 30' front yard setbacks and two 10' side yard setbacks. Requiring the same size setbacks on all streets provides visual continuity and maintains a uniform design throughout neighborhoods. As stated previously, the applicant does have a reasonable use of the site with a two car attached garage and has not demonstrated a hardship. Staff recommends denial of the variance. reEJ.t:lest besaøse tke ttf)f)lisaftt kas Het àem0Hst.Fateà a hardskip. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: , Brown Variance March 11, 2002 Page 4 a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings. shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has a reasonable use of the site. A single-family home with an attached two-car garage exits on site. The majority of homes within 500 feet of this property also have two-car garages. Approving this variance will depart from existing standards in the neighborhood and create a precedence. 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 conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the PUD-R zoning district. 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: The purpose of this variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income of the property, but to enlarge the garage space on site. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created, as a reasonable use already exists on the site. 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: Although the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, it will permit a front yard setback- that is less than others found in this development. 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 increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or increase the danger to the public, but it will allow a garage to be located closer to the street than other structures in this neighborhood. Brown Variance March 11, 2002 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION Sfl¡ff Planning Commission recommends the PJEIIUliRg CeææissieR City Council adopt the following motion: "The PlaRRiRg CaæmissieR City Council denies the variance request (02-1) for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage addition based upon the following: L The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship." Attachments L Application and letter and Appeal letter 2. Relevant City Ordinances 3. Survey and architectural details 4. .'\r-ea æa)'! af gllfllge sizes Updated map of garage sizes (garages within 500') 5. Public hearing notice 6. Minutes from February 19,2002 Planning Commission Meeting g:\plan\jh\projects\variance\brown02_ t .doc \_, ) Attachment 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 caUL TER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937·1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATlON RECEIVED JAN lt'l CITy ,zooz OF~~ "\ APPUCANT: s.~~~~ -t Î 0..1"\ Y 0... ßI'D.A)y\ ADDRESS: \ L\ '1.0 \-Ic...1I1 M 1\ r C,,)A.()VV\. TELEPHONE (Day time) q 6 'l. - 3u '6 ~ '2>'6 C\ S OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Perm~ , - Conditional Use Perm~ _ Vacation of ROWlEasements - Interim Use Perm~ -X Variance _ Non-conforming Use Perm~ - Wetland Alteration Perm~ .. _ Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign '4. '5b - Site Plan Review' -2L Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAPlMetes , and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB) - SubdMsion' TOTAL FEE $ A ßst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. BuDding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~wenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy of tr . h.. each plan sheet. - 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. rr.. , ¡ ¡ '--" J RECEIVE, JAN D . " 1.7 200'2~' crn, . . .rrOFCH, . 'ANHA~SEf . . " I. PROJECTNAME (:,a..,-a3e fidJ,b"", . '3r.l 5~A.l\ LOCATION 1L 2.Ò HE~()N Ol<.:¡ý\; LEGAl DESCRIPTION LI'J-r ~ 'RLDGk Z. , LAkE< l5u..5AAJ J.lILLS I./J£'~ '3~() AD{)rT"lðN , . C^R.VER. GOU.NT\'. M N I TOTAL ACREAGE 0.5 QDrB~ WETlANDS p'RESEÑT . YES X NO 'PRESENTZONìNG 'Res', de/l-ho..l 'REQUES1EDZONING N () &á'^1€ ('€rUf>5WJ PRESENT lAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED lAND USE DESIGNATION I BEASON FOR THIS REQUEST t,;~e L.;¡\ I ("" (./J \;'\\1'/\ ~ +eeT +V-OM C~t.y &pe,n¡ í-lI~!lMMl (f',105etT f¡Ì¡(\t- ~3 ..çee\ ; 33 -tee.. +rnf" ClÁrbJ This appncation 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 wnh the Planning . Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 1\. determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written S10lice 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 (enher copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of· nle. Abstract of Trtle or purchase agreement). or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 win keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further lJTlderstand that additional fees may be charged for consu~ing fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore. the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day i!xtension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless addnional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Date J~c,~ SignaliJre of Applicant A.LI ( SignaliJre of Fee Owner 1- 9-02- 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. Jf not contacted. a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's Project: Garage addition, 3" Stall. 1420 Heron Drive, Chanh...... MN .1\ \'\ RECEIVED JA~ li'7 2002 CfrrOF' Property: Lot 3, Block 2, Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition, Carver County, J/!ANHASBEN 1420 Heron Drive, Chanhassen, MN Variance Summarv Project: Garage Addition, 3 rd Stall (attached to home) Property owners: Stuart and Tanya Brown 952-368-3895 Item I. Completed application form. Attached Item 2. Application Fee. Attached Item 3. Evidence of Ownership. Attached Item 4. Location Map showing property within Yo miles of site. City will provide. Item 5. List of property owners and addresses within 500 feet of property boundary. Attached Item 6. Property adjacent to a lake or affects usage of a lake... Not applicable. Item 7. Plot plan. Attached Item 8. Written Description of variance requested. Attached Item 9. Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58). Attached Item 4. Location Map showing property within Yz miles of site. City wül provide. Project: Garage addition. 3" Stall. 1420 He,on Drive, Chanhassen, MN Item 6. Property adjacent to a lake or affeets usage of a lake... Not flDDlicabtl/£CEIItJ J4N 1 ~D CfTÿ'1 2002 OF CHANHASS~ We are requesting a variance in order to pursue the addition of a 3rd stall to our existing two-car 'N garage. Item 7. Plot Plan. Attached Item 8. Written description of variance requested. At its closest point to the closest street (Ibis Court), the 3rd stall measures 32 feet to roadway (Ibis Court). We understand that the City requires a 50 it right of way on Ibis Court. According to the city, Ibis measures 28 feet wide. This results in a property line I I feet in ITom the Ibis Court roadway. (Calculations based on instructions ITom city planning dept. i.e. 50-28=22; 22/2=11). We further understand the city requires that any structure on the property must be setback at least 30 feet ITom this property line at its closest point Since our 3M stall garage addition will be 32 jèet from the street, and therefore 21 feet from the property line, we understand a variance from the City of Chanhassen is required Item 9. Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58): a) Our variance request is for an attached 3'd garage stall which will be "only" 32 feet ITom the nearest roadway (2 I feet ITom the property line). This variance therefore amounts to allowing our garage to be a mere 8 feet closer to the property line than normally allowed. Strict enforcement indeed results in "undue hardship" in the sense that our property cannot be put to "reasonable use". Reasonable use in this context refers to the very common use of three stall garages in comparable properties within 500 feet of our property. A 3'd stall addition to our property would blend in and be very consistent with surrounding property (homes) in our area. Please note. we have indeed considered alternate oDtions: First, adding on to the rear of our garage. This results in a much more complicated and costly construction process. It requires substantially altering our existing sructure roofIine. Builders who have reviewed our options recommend if at all possible adding on as we have proposed- a tuck under design which does not alter the existing roofline in any way, and results in a simpler and more aesthetically pleasing structure. Further, expanding to the rear disrupts all utilities, including gas, electric, telephone, all of our above ground sprinkler system valves, and our central AC unit. These would all have to be moved. And finally, this would cover up the single window we have on the West side of our home. As you can see, expanding rearward presents many very real hardships. Also considered was a large "shed" in the back yard. We have polled many neighbors and the unanimous feeling is that would be much more of an eyesore to the neighborhood than a simple attached 3'd stall a full 32 feet in from the nearest roadway. And of course a detached Project: Garage addition, 3" Stall. 1420 Heron Drive, Chanhas.... MN shed presents a "convenience" hardship when trying to access our snoblower, lawnmower, bikes etc. An attached 3 rd stall also eliminates another future eyesore to the neighborhood, that of an outside stored vehicle (should we ever let our kids have their own car!). b) The condiûons upon which are variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the residenûal zoning classification. c) Our intent is NOT to increase the value or income potential of our property. Our intent is simply reasonable use of the property so we can live here for many more years! © d) We do not believe the "hardship" is self-created. We sincerely feel our request is simply reasonable use of our property. e) In no way will granûng this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in our neighborhood. f) The addition of a 3rd stall garage to our property will NOT impair and adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or increase congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or impair property values in our neighborhood. RECEIVED JAN 17 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Addendum RECEIVED FEB 2 5 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Project: Garage additioo. 3" Stall. 1420 Heron Drive. Chanhassen, MN Appeal to City Council We are requesting an Appeal to the Chanhassen City Council in response to the Planning Commission denial of our variance request. (Hearing was 2/1912002). We do not feel the Planning Commission adequately considered the merits of our request and the unique hardship we face on our comer lot property. Our fundamental reasons for reauestin!! aooroval our variance: The variance..... · is not contrary to the public interest. · is in harmony with tbe spirit and intent oUhe applicable zoning ordinance. · will not result in diminution in value ofsurrounding properties. · if approved, will result in substantial justice being done. Facts supporting above: · Project bas full support of neighborhood. · Please refer to signatures of surrounding homes indicating no objections. It is our understanding that the City received no (zero) objections from any property owner within 500 ft. of our property. · If approved, 40% of homes on our cui de sac will have 3'" stall garages. In the entire neighborhood, approximately I in 4 homes have 3'" stalls. · Variance will have no negative impact on traffic/pedestrian sight lines. · One primary reason for two front yard setbacks on comer lots is to assure an unobstructed view for vehicles and pedestrians approaching intersection. · Though there is no sight line impact, l'd like to also point out that lbislHeron intersection is stop sign controlled. · When reading the specific intent of the Zoning Chapter ofChanhassen's City Code, this variance is indeed in harmony with the spirit of that intent. Intent of Zoning ordinances (per city code): (I) Protect residential, commercial, industrial and institutional areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses; (2) Prevent overcrowding of land; (3) Conserve and enhance the city's tax base; (4) Prolect against fire, smoke, explosion, noxious fumes, offense noise, vibration, dust, odors, heat, glare and other hazards to people; (5) Preserve the natural beauty and amenities of the city and achieve excellence and originality of design; (6) Facilitate the provision of public services; (7) Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property. · The alternatives faced by a homeowner when such a reasonable use of his property is denied are quite arguably much more at odds with the intent of City Code. · Storing/parking camping trailers, vehicles, etc. outside home. · Construction of storage sheds in back yard. Is there a Hardshio? · Yes, there is a defmite hardship unique to our property. · When all setbacks are taken into account, over 71 % of our comer lot is unbuildable. (See Attachment I). . This presents a hardship which effectively prevents us from improving or modernjzing our home. . If approved, we will have been allowed to use only an additional 0.8% of currently restricted property. · We have considered other options. Project: Garage addition, 3~ Stall. 1420 Heron Drive, Chanhassen, MN . Extending garage rearward. This results in a significantly more complex and expensive project. ALL utilities (gas, electric) would have to be moved. Extending rearward is not consistent with our cWTent roofline and results in a much more extensive construction project; as opposed to proposed structure which does not impact existing roofline. Extending rearward COVCIS the single window on the east side of our home. . A detached garage in backyard. For accessibility and ability to store a vehicle/camper, a driveway is needed. However, a further hardship exlsts- City Code does not ai/ow a second driveway on corner lots. This result then is effectively a storage shed, which does not offer the functionality or convenience of an attached garage. And is unanimously NOT the prefetTed option by the SWTOunding neighbOlnood. What about nrecedence? . We understand this is a concern for the city. However, it is critical to Govern not out of fear of precedence, but rather on the justice and merits of individual cases. . I am certain I would not be the first person in Chanhassen to be granted a variance. In fact I would not be the first person in Chanhassen history to be granted a variance for the addition of a garage. But in no way does that mean I am entitled or deserving of a variance. I am only deserving of a variance based on the specific merits of my case. The same is true for everyone. I only ask that you focus on the specific details of our request and do not fonn a bias based simply on fear of precedence. . In the planning commission meeting I mentioned the example oftelecommuting or special work schedules (4-day weeks e.g.) common in society today. We all know someone with a special work arrangement. They or someone before them undoubtedly set a precedence. And undoubtedly, Human Resources feared the precedence it would set. But has it mined American productivity? Does everyone have special work schedules or work &om home? Of course not; they are exceptions based on their unique circumstances and job flexibility within their company. If we make decisions heavily weighted by fear of precedence we become inflexible and inefficient in the face of a changing world and unique circumstances. And finallv. a Dicture is worth a thousand words....... · See attachment 2. These are digital photo's meant to help show what the finished project will look like. · Photo I shows our home and where the 3'" stall will go. Photo 2 shows a "cut and pasted" 3'" stall &om a same model home in our neighborhood. I took care to size the addition to give a reasonably accurate of what the real sight lines will be on the completed project. Ibis Ct. is on the far right. The closest point &om the added garage to Ibis is a full 32 feet. · Photo's 3 and 4 are before and after views trom the comer of Heron and Ibis Ct. This view shows quite clearly the significant setback of our home &om Heron and Ibis Ct. Photo 4 makes it quite clear that the project will have absolutely no negative impact on traffic or pedestrian sight lines trom Heron or Ibis Ct. ,....- A""ttac.tM(i.Y'\~ .i /4l.() 1"¡I<~aN DR -_.-------~ ------------.---.-.,--- ---_._-~- ...---.-. .._._-----~,.- ----~-~-- 1- E~~ __~ - (1) I . ~----- I Isq f~ I~~________ ..m._____ ¡ 1; h--- ... -----. - ---.---..--. ~ . ~--'1"~"-' ,'._.n_ ...---_____~_..._._...___._._... £, -_._-~--- Ibl' . I .--.----- ~ :'; ß ¡~ --~..__._._.- -'-~ --"--"-- . ì ...... t"----------~ . -...-.-. ......'-_. g i" - ~-_.._-_. ~ - ~ ¡- í'~---:---~_-.n'. -- j'J p L!--~__.,___ ._n_ " ~j ii- 126.<;' ft: ::1 d -... 11 __.-!!-.e'f"'tJ,q . . --,-----.. ~---_.- .¡ i1 i --- --¡¡---- :.:: 4P4r-~ .--.-.---- --- ~---- .--,--- _ _..._ "m -~---. \ ~ ._-~_._---_.- ._-.--.---' Vt ·-·f ..----....--'. , -~--_.._-- ----.--.....----. -.-.---..--,.----. .,--._--.-...... .-------.- -.'------_..-- .0·..._···-·----·--·0 ---.---..--- -'---'--- ',{ TC)'ï"L u:rr: $1 ~E - I'L/10'f't'\. .----,. D.III..4.tC.R¡:: - . . ~- í 1:] ;"¡ ','j :1- 'j j j j ,]--F".........."_______ ! . r- ------ '1------ , - -~ tt'1.. . tot ~ ft~ - ¡;' 'i!U +-"" . . '1. __13/'lP/'f'" --- -,.-..--. '2. 00 I 'F - II) - ~ - ~ l ( '0 . cw I.L - 3 :J .. ~ ¡ :::c t t 3' ~ 3 ~ IÞ ~ 5 t ~ c: ~ 0 J I) u ~ ~, V'I 1:11 \&I ~ ß ..J ...J ~ . II \'I) ~ ð ~ I tt/ Q Z i ... N :r - ::;> Q. (:) I¡I ~ ~ o o E i 3 W.,. ~ " ¡ M'\;.f '-:1.,'.'.,. 2 OQ ~ :z Q ~ ~ ~ .,~ :Iii t;¡ ? ., rv3WliJV ( L (-I ~./;.... ~,., ". ,., > ~~)-...., Nfitkbo~ ~Iy",.etwt$. We have no objections to the 3'" stall garage addition proposed for 1420 Heron Drive. Dated Feb. 2002. Signature of neighbor and address: '~ !'- f\/1yv ~~ . K ~ ¡f'~iV . ~~ B40¡ .:nSis C~. ';j~ 53 't cfI ì( '+.KJ :J~ I~ (-I ~ \b(,) ('f... ~·C:é. ~~ 1krv 5> I (~..¡ . ( _?..:-te ~ ~ ~t~ 'I'ill fll'-( J/7IC c:./, øl{0( :Ç4-n4 ut· . I c VYì 'I'T In 1___ 5 It.. ~___ <;q'S() ,Lbi~) (t , YUIII&-t ~íØ;h 'bl{00 ThiJ ct. (1J{/ì7J¿ 5~ C:/ <:,. -- C\ """7/ ~ ~ s +Lu %f', \ L. & þJ v . /'-15/ ff''>,.fo¡u DI<:'. JLFj / JlU'cn /Jr. f.1 are SJfMh\iU wit! 1.:.4 ¡;t$trttcd to Cdy (!1U1J¿'/ & ¡¡¡¡I.e./ Attachment 2 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Loti Wh.r. Frontag. I. M.&lur.d At 8.tbaok Un. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location ofthese 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. Hick I F'ag Loti -. Lot Lln. 100' Lo. W.cr.It . I . . I I I I I I I +-- i.. __.I I : -,- ~, I .... _. I I I I I I I L _ L-_._I_....J (4) The maximum 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 .,-- . : >: '::~. ,:..i \~ . ,.. , .<,'~ t':. >:~~~f;~~e~"¡ .:'~.:. .\~: ~ . ~·~·~'::~.·,~{~t~:~;: ¡~~::~ " .'" ':,('."~ ~ ;:~;~; ~ .,..,.....,;¡¡;:.,."...,. ......... ,> ,........ ~:tl:i..~ ~;,>=~...:·'~·'~.r.;~...~' l . . : ,:,;;.~:.~ . .'. .::.;.~:..: ~:. :'.' ~. :;;~"!:-,::1:,."~Z'.",,,:. f "~c'}~ . ... :".' "<i" ~ ::.¡' :: ~..:,~}~ .~..' ""'~,;;,:: ',' ('';: ~:;34·~.~,.+,(.:.;'~í'?~ff:"i~·~": ' ;~. . . Attachment 3 t ", ;'.,:,..:~: ~~,'~~·r-:. . ''';. FOR: \/I .' C) . . t9~C£/~ . JI/"I.]', ~D Ctl}-o¡:~ 2002 I't4SsEN 1:> ~C!. K. APPROVED. , , ;.' N '" . I'll '£If' ~ '. C) , .... d, .., . .' .·.,~D.. .....:.~: , .' . . S8lø 0" '. ". ":.:',.. ':""'., EH" ¡;~~, ~::Tt~ - . q31.~ -~lj~?-/.¡~~N·,r(,.?~·:~<¡~,o:~' :;~~~bÂ3 ~1' Lf!¡q£ ~~N HJL~ WBT 313i IIJJ.,"""'-..· /"')0''', R i::- . CRP-YÇf(, COUNTY, MN ...~q~.S' _ 0= WOOD STAKE PLACED 0 = IRON.MON. SET . .'. IRON MON. INPLACE B.M.- 7o.p cr Ct/ieð.47" NE.ÚJ/2¡'/é'R oF- ¿cr 3. BlOCK. Z· SI.E.v, 93'.1 BEARINGS.ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR ELEV. ··'141.0 GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. 911<! B BASEMENT ELEV. 9-1/.3 TOP BLOCK ELEV. .:-+.= DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST.. ELEV.. 000.0 = PROPOSED ELEV. 50~.Ò = EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. I hereby certify that this plan, surveyor report was JOB # prepared by me or under my direct supervision and thaI I am 3fcO 7 a duly RegIstered Land Surveyor under the laws ofthe Slate of Minnesota.~ Book- Page d-v ~ /(0-37 -- Scale Date: mil/? 15'. 1"It¡0 glstration No. 14700 1'=40' CLOSEST P¡)IWí "íO eMkMfiNTI S-r ¡,EE"f"' ÐI5'rAA)C¡; 'To Sïn,(;'E'T: 3~ fT :J SCHOBORG ND SURVEYING JNC. 972-3221 Rt. 1, Box 208 Oelano, MN 55328 c j~~:~.:~::'A1·IOhl L L- .,"'-----. . ~,,~·'~".,.-7'~·.,.'-=-" . f«1"'''U.&f.¡<.~ 6MÞ/J' ______, -'T .J7 ,A"útl rrcl~l1~.... t W/t>l~ll"~ ",CO., - ~~ p""". .....~ 2:." rl'<tl t"~TI"" ( rø"rø~IIØ~ ÞtIM. .,..... ~ ,. 11M'" ....TlR" ~tWUI')fe:~J - ør-I;1~IN', _tlYlU'fN U>:f" . ".-. 1 '..,-2 .~ i . :.,,'1... ~---_.-----. ..------.-- ROOF" \Wr~ -r, HATOI $(1<¡,.TI..!u @ *OO~\ 09 AlII" ""^'~ f r/...,~ e ~IT iii....." I"'~~· "'- rAiIA.'lAf~':,¡ ~IU>TIt" ~rvrl"" _Tw/"""" 1'~1""")I"~1\Iu.t ,;.f}~ 0.11. ti1111 I" foWv,H. ';;'¡;'- ~ CrÄrw;te;. ~Tlof.J [ -"L ~ ~ ¡¡ ,\I, .<!, ~ ;;;~ -\1 .: ¡¡ ï ". '\-......., b1' ~Vti< . ~_~"¡..f"'~ttI< " 'I::::::J t--."I)O'<fi' {QIJ<, ~ r"o[l~" ÐlIICnl,. :; 1fA''''''' "0/>'" {.IITLII ttl'TI~ J 1yt ÞT¡,I"Þß luo"/).c. } ÞIVI . (J ,., fl/llCAI f><I~TI~" .. --..,.- fI'"'~ _ Vi' MetlQ e f.,' ø.t, '0" f~I"'I\WI11111Lt. cot-l'/\I;rt "OAf, wI (p~(, IOlio wwr .. "T~'~;:'r'~~(V~I~~~~~;t:"- p~ ,oW pI<\!> "W,.. {.o'''''~, 6¡ \AIJI.HII" flLC --,. -.--.--'. --.-...........--.-----.-......--..--...-. '-" '0 ...---~_._- . ~~"___________m____·_ .M i i! ~ -H ~ f.. . ......._-- v' £,/ --.-- -~-_.- __m_·__ ."" I· _,._.._,_-::_-:-:-~.~_-:- -:' L:·~~~'._· ___.._0.. i5 <> ~ I -r! -------=-~------- þ~-ID~~~ ____ _ 00 - -. . - -.----,.rr- i I J J---- ---::h :'1 '!FAf<fiAL- I-Io"'~~ -¡;'L£VAìl~[ ~ ... """""~':I"" 0 di ~ a ~ ... -- Î--. ÞIVI~L' 1~ IV<T/.! f1o~¡'¡¡ I --:.....-·:__:.'1 6w'"''''" IIAM l~ht (,~T ". r'r..~"Þ"I~ f:'I''::¡J':~ I - . ..... 1--- I 1--- I iii t\:)ì~. 1._. .- AMú~- þ(ll;JllilL1~ C \_ AI?DIíIOW 4/11\#Ifi- 44" --_/ j ~ iÞr¡~~ .""""----r IMfA """"') I I I I I I "T..!:.- ';:'_ - - _ ] ItA<!>1 I':i-I':VATION t ~"~~"I~""~ _.-1 '" -~ { 4>¡- !11:¡;" * I Ì' !'$q~?>'~1' . bl- W'K'''' rAÞ '- '1. "', 41", .-t};-\ - ri' "ïr GYmll I ("'Mill I¥I ~"1'(." I . I I 11t It·I!;".1~L·I.1t IJt1~T tll<fA.IAIl eve """. ;í&IjT~ 'i ~ "" ~ \i' " "<: f 11'; -0. ( :t ... '" -i'~'J< II ~o" :\> '" I" ,Q j ~:~~I>r.-AW L f!; F a (.) <l 11\ o '2 ill D~ \.\\ u ~'ª tLs ~-, ~ ~. CJ! I:L~ l\\;! ð+H~ßí ® \ /: \(Q \\:::---= AITACHMENT4 i r _ GARAGE SIZES WITHIN 500 FEET '-..... ~'~ ~fI (2) Tw~ Car Garage ~ (3) Three Car Garage CI) ~ CI) ~ ~ ..... . ..... ... ( ) ... o Õ. >< w u ... « - a: (/) w A " tM:aeL.I....l.ìL 4 oJ .> tr> f d ~ " <II $ 0 0 ~ <II \. '" 6 <II Ù 01 c: 0 Q) (1 ~ ~ ...., ~ ( ) /'"' ši ( ) '"'"' 'tJ r'I ( ) ~ ( ) ~ Dg~~ c: 'tJ j ( ) - ~ I ~ ..) <:lz <:> <:> '" <:> <:> .. ~ " " ... <:> <:> <II <:> 4~~¡f,ß ,2- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variance Request ~0' APPLICANT: Stuart & Tanya Brown LOCATION: 1420 Heron Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Stuart and Tanya Brown, are requesting a variance for the construction of a garage addition on property zoned PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential, located at 1420 Heron Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. 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 Julie at 227-1132. 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 February 7, 2002. City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. The staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council . may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVindustrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Smooth Feed SheetsTM JEROME C & ELIZABETH J MAULE 8520 SPOONBILL CIR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8560 MICHAELJ & MARY EHRMANTRAUT 8510 SPOONBILL CIR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8560 JAMES P & SUSAN K LOOYSEN 8521 SPOONBILL CIR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8560 JAMES K & CORAL J JOHNSON 8531 SPOONBILL CIR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8560 COLE D & TERESE D KELLY 1556 BLUEBILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN55317 8570 JAMES A & TAMMY R THOMPSON 8511 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8523 RONALD J & SUE E BUSCH 8521 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8523 MARK A & JANE MABEL 8531 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8523 DAVID W & JULIE A SCHERLE 8541 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8523 JAMES A & TAMARA A SCHAFER 8528 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8540 .. .. ----- .. . GREGORYC&KlMBERLY A HAYES 8542 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8540 MARK W SCHONNING 8556 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8540 JLS INVESTMENTS INC 3312 LAKESHORE CT CHASKA MN 55318 1059 JOHN & SUSAN SCHULTZ 1430 MALLARD CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8548 KEVIN L & SHIRLEY C STROE1NG 1440 MALLARD CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8548 JOHN M & BETTY A O'BRIEN 1441 MALLARD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8548 ROGER H SMALLBECK 1431 MALLARDCT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8548 JON R & HOPE A SMITH 1421 MALLARD CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8548 TIMOTHY C & ANN B MCGEE 1411 MALLARD CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8548 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN55317 0147 Use template for 5160~ GREGORY DEAN DOEDEN & JULIE LENORE DOEDEN 8480 SWAN CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8520 CHRISTOPHER B & JUDY PAROLA 8470 SWAN CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8520 CURT & DAWN SANTJER 8460 SWAN CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8520 ROGER & DEBORAH BENSON 8461 SWANCT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8520 DONALD G & LANA J KILIAN 8471 SWANCT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8520 BRUCE R & DEBORAH B SMITH 8481 SWANCT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8520 DANIEL P & NORA L FLAHERTY 1470 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8525 ROSS N & DEBRA A ANDERSON 1460 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8525 DAVID DOUGLAS KOESTER 1450 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8525 DONALD D PROSSER 1440 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8525 Smooth Feed Sheets™ )RALEE CHRISTINE NESBURG 130 HERON DR H:ANHAsSEN MN 55317 8525 mART C & TANYA M BROWN ,20 HERON DR 'IANHASSEN MN55317 8525 AVID A & JOANNE M HERMAN \80 mIS CT 'lANHASSEN MN 55317 8521 ICHAEL E & CAROL J SORENSEN ·70 IBIS CT 'IANHASSEN MN55317 8521 :JANE R & KATHLEEN M EISCHENS \60 IBIS CT ''lANHASSEN MN 55317 8521 ROMAS A & TINA L SAUE j50 IBIS CT 'tIANHASSEN MN55317 8521 kTER R & ANNE M VOAS ¡51 IBIS CT f!ANHASSEN MN 55317 8521 :IOMAS E HURLEY ;'61 IBIS CT 'fANHASSEN MN 55317 8521 IYLLIS I & CHERYL A BAUCH 71 IBIS CT 'IANHASSEN MN55317 8521 ILEY J & DENISE R WILKINSON 81 IBIS CT lANHASSEN MN55317 8521 ... .- .--- .- KEITH & SHARON KLOCKER 8491 IBIS CT CHANHASSEN MN55317 8521 BRADLEY D & DEBORAH J HUSS 1501 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8530 JAMES C & JANET C CARMICHIEL 1491 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8529 DARJN T & SUZANNE M LERBS 1481 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8529 PATRICK E & MARGARET M WISE 1471 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8529 DAVID & DEBRA K KUBISIAK 1461 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8529 STEPHEN NORNES & JEAN OLFELT NORNES 1451 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8529 STEVEN L & CAMMIE J LILLEHAUG 1441 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8529 ROSS A & NATALIA J HUSEBY 1431 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8528 KENNETH J & KARl D O'KONEK 1421 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8528 Use template for 5160~ GARY P & ANGELA J MAGNUSON 1411 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN55317 8528 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN55317 0147 MICHAEL P & JULIE RAE SMITHSON 13770 FRONTIER CT BURNSVILLE MN55337 4720 SCOTT C & JULIE A BERGQUIST 1321 LAKE SUSAN Hll..LS I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8504 ROY A & DIANE E MCCARRON 1331 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8504 JEFFREY P OLDENKAMP & PAMELA C OLDENKAMP 1341 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8504 JON A NYLAND 1351 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8504 KEVIN B & SHERYL L IHLANG 1361 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8504 JUAN F & RAMONA R PENA 1350 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8503 DOUGLAS R & SHARON LEE TAYLOR 1360 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8503 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160œI moMAS G & TERESA A KELLY 1370 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8503 PATRICKJ & JILL R SMITH 1380 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8503 MICHAEL A & GINA M HAMARI 1390 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8503 JOHN D & CHRISTINE LOVE-JENSEN 1400 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8506 MARLIN R SHAFFER SR JANN HELENA MILLER 1410 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8506 JEFFREY A & ANN K WESSELS 1420 LAKE SUSAN HILLS ( CHANHASSEN MN55317 8506 MICHAEL WILLIAM COLBY & JENNA LYNN COLBY 1430 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8506 GREGORY D & ANNE M HUNSAKER 1440 LAKE SUSAN HILLS I CHANHASSEN MN55317 8506 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN55317 0147 ... CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Craig Claybaugh, LuAnn Sidney, and Vii Sacchet MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Julie Grove, Planner I; Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. LOCATED AT 1420 HERON DRIVE. STUART AND TANYA BROWN. Public Present: Name Address Dave Kubisiak Stuart & Tanya Brown Steven Lillehaug 1461 Heron Drive 1420 Heron Drive 1441 Heron Drive Julie Grove presented the staff report on this item, Blackowiak: Okay, I'd just like to clarify. You said, 1 think you meant to say 37 have 3 car garages, is that correct? Grove: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Corrunissioners, any questions of staff right now? Okay. Alright. thank you. At this point, if the applicant or their designee would like to make a presentation, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Stuart Brown: Hello, I'm Stuart Brown. My wife Tanya is in the audience here. A couple neighbors. At least one. So you have any questions for me before, Ijust have a few things. Blackowiak: Why don't you just go ahead and if there's anything you'd like us to hear, then we can ask questions if need be. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19,2002 Stuart Brown: I'll figure this thing. I do have a few pictures... I guess I'd just like to start, you know our background. We've been at this address, residence for 10 years. Since 1990. Or more than 10 years. Since 1990, and members of the church, school. We're the coordinators for our Neighborhood Watch and work with Beth Hoiseth here. Take pride in the home's appearances, I think any neighbors would attest. Clean yard. Clean home. Nice landscaping. Last thing we' d ever do is anything that would detract from any of that. Our sole desire is really quite simply to put our property to reasonable use and that's subject to definitions of course. Be in harmony with the neighborhood so that we can continue to reside at our home comfortably in Chanhassen where we want to stay in our current home. Close to our church and school and all those things so nothing more sinister than that. The proposed addition is you know it's a third stall attached garage. I'm on a large half acre lot. The garage when finished would be, give the exact. The variance is fundamentally when you take the right-of-way on Ibis Court which is we're at the corner of Ibis and Heron. The outer part of the garage when finished would be 33 feet from the curb, or 22 feet from the property line and code in the city is 30 feet from the property line. But we are, I want to emphasize we're a full 33 feet in from the curb, from the nearest street or anything like that. But the ordinance in our case on our lot would be 41 feet. As we've measured Ibis and gotten the rules from Julie and what have you. It would blend perfectly with our home. I've done some digital photo trickery. We have a home just like our's in the neighborhood a few blocks over. Exactly the same color as our's and they have a third stall attached so I did the photo of our house and a photo of their house and. Here's our. this is our, end of our second car garage here. This is where we'd be, the arrows show where the corners of the garage would be. And here I've magically pasted a third stall on from like in our neighbor's house. It's also white so it blends kind of nice. And I brought it right out where the orange label is in this picture so that's where it would be. In the second. ..third photo I went out to the stop sigu here at the corner of Ibis and Heron and again here's where our garage isn't today. It's a two stall garage. Where the orange flag would be, and I've pasted the same size garage and.. . yet to trust tbe computer here that I'm being accurate. This is what it would look like with a third stall on there. If you look here we're, you'll see that the flag is a good 6 to 10 feet in from this pine tree. I think everyone, they hear the thing and go oh, that pine tree will have to go. That's sad. I say oh no, we're several feet in from that. They're oh my gosh, that's way in you know, so I, the neighbors reaction has been very favorable which I'll get to in a minute. I brought a sigued thing from every member in our cul-de-sac saying they have no objections, for what it's worth. And if approved this would result in 40 percent of the homes on our cul-de-sac having a third stall garage. If you go 500 feet out or you go multiple, I'd be the fourth out of 10 homes on our cul-de-sac that would have a third stall garage so far from a huge minority in our immediate surroundings there. And again I did have all neighbors within eyeshot of this sign a piece of paper saying they have absolutely no objections. In fact, they preferred that. We're proposing a nice professional addition to the home as opposed to perhaps a large shed in the back yard which would have more line of sight issues for them or storing things like third stall, third cars, is happening in our neighborhood with 2 car garages. People are parking cars and things on the grass and we certainly want to avoid that with the pride in our home and our area. Especially right on a visible corner. I have notes here so bear with me. It does not come close at all, by any stretch of the imagination of blocking any traffic sight lines at the intersection. It's a controlled intersection there as you recall the stop sigu. Even so it is definitely does not block any traffic sight lines. Repetitive. No objections to anyone, we didn't get a signature from everyone within 500 feet but only you would know if people you know written back to you after receiving the letter saying we object. .. .but I haven't seen any. And okay I went over that point. So I guess fundamentally you know I can't in the narrowest sense of the law is this a hardship. I mean picking, moving into a home and that's, I can't defend the absolute, you know is this a self imposed hardship as was found. Therefore, sorry. You know, you move into a lot and 10 years ago I guess we could have said well yeah, it was self imposed because I didn't measure things out and think 12 years ahead and that we'd have kids and garage you know and cars and the things that 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19,2002 would cause us to grow, but we want to stay where we're at. In relative, I know there's another argument that was cited in the rejection report is that issue of precedence and weird analogy but I work in corporate America and I wonder, among you folks, you know anyone in the city or where you work that, bear with me on this analogy but, works 4 days a week or telecommutes possibly or has a slightly different work schedule. And the answer I'm guessing in today's workplace, probably yeah, I know somebody. Undoubtedly they or someone before them set a precedence and I don't think anyone of us would say oh yeah, as soon as that person did that, the entire office didn't show up on Monday. They all telecommute, or everyone didn't show up on Fridays anymore. I think we've got an issue of precedence needs to really be evaluated on a case by case basis rather than governing by the fear of oh no, we've set a precedence in Chanhassen here. All the people now put in and want to be building right up to their property lines. I think we've got to look at it on a, you know consider what negative consequences, if any, could result here. And like in this case, and it's simply a professional discreet addition of a third stall. A full 33 feet from any street. There's absolutely no objections, in fact full support from the surrounding neighbor and neighborhood. So really no more complex than that. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Stuart Brown: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions of the applicant? UIi, go ahead. Sacchet: The alternatives. You mentioned a shed in the back yard for like lawnmower and stuff. In the report it also mentions having possibly the garage made deeper. Can you talk to that briefly please? Stuart Brown: Yeah, sure can. Two points there that are mentioned in there. The first thing, anyone looking at the back yard would say, is I have a football field behind me so why not just go a couple hundred feet of garage in the rear. A couple reasons. One thing we at one time considered, which we understand is a new law, is you can't have a second driveway. Theoretically I could put some things back and you can't have 2 driveways on a residence so that kind of, I learned a new law and so won't, you know that would be yet another variance that I don't want to try. The second thing is right here behind our home, in this corner. I wonder if you can, the photographs don't do justice either, but I'll put this here. If you were to extend it rear ward this way, from a professional builder point of view, that affects the roof line quite more dramatically if you will then our existing. We just, as many people did after the hail storm, re-shingle this year. The proposed garage tucks under our existing roof line here and requires you know not to tear the roof off. So from a construction point of view it's a much simpler project. Again, that'd be my own hardship and not your's there but the real killer is, behind this part that you can't see is where our natural, where our gas is brought into our home. Our electricity is brought into our home. Where our air conditioner is. Where sprinkler valves are. Dryer vent, but it would require moving all the utilities, which is from a, you know and it's very important to my wife, it covers the one window on the east side of our home would be gone. So we'd have no morning sunshine and have to move all the utilities in a much extensive construction project, and expensive yes in that sense you know my interest there but it was definitely considered. We had the guy look at it and again the roof line issues. That's a good picture too. Here's where all the utilities are. Gas, electric, air conditioning and sprinkler valves. That's a pretty radical construction. And aesthetically the builder said, or the construction guy, you've got a much prettier roof line naturally and just tuck under like, there are 2 other homes in our neighborhood like our's and this is exactly how. .. Sacchet: One more question. I kind of think of myself in this context. I have kids and the oldest one has a car and it's awfully nice to be able to put that in a garage right. But then come 2 years from now he's 3 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 going to be gone, and his car with him. So I don't know whether it would be inappropriate to ask you how many kids do you have? Stuart Brown: We have 2 children. Sacchet: Okay. Stuart Brown: And stuff. Bikes. Snowblowers. Sacchet: I know about the stuff part. Stuart Brown: That's what I mean, you know the narrowest interpretation. If everything was...is any of this hardship imposed on themselves. I think you know, I don't know if anyone can escape that. Anyone asking for a variance can say that yeah, I own the house so I... I can't go down and I can't win that in the narrowest sense but. And we do own a, which we're storing in a pole barn now, one of those little pop-up campers and we think to take our kids camping and store that out in Chaska. We may continue to do that depending on, depends on where the stuff goes if we put the camper in but, I think you know in today's world a third stall is, it's a luxury no doubt about it but we could really use it. And again, I don't think it's unreasonable use of this land. I think hopefully that one picture, when you look from that comer of Ibis and what we're talking about there. Standing out here at the comer. There's the garage. Really what.. .just look at that and I go, is it digital trickery but you look at that and say, that just doesn't strike anyone that sees this or looks at the flags in our yard as being close to anything, I really don't think the city will ever suffer any repercussions on a project like this. Blackowiak: LuAnn, did you have a question? Sidney: No I don't. Claybaugh: I had a question here. In one of our first paragraphs it identifies that the shed in the back of the yard that they've.. .this proved to be too costly and complicated. In addition, constructing a shed in the back yard to store equipment, snowblower, lawnmower, bikes, etc was considered. I understand on some level why you wouldn't want to do that in the back and necessarily why your neighbors would prefer that you didn't do that. Is there something inbetween a full third stall and something that will fit within the setback requirements that can be attached to the house? I drove by your house. I can see that, why the builders are identifying a roof to roof addition off this side toward Ibis in lieu of a complicated saddle roof to wall connection if you went off the back but would there be any relief there if you did come off the side and didn't do a full third stall but created some space there within the setback requirements? Stuart Brown: Well you know, yeah I mean we could go out I believe, since this is a 14 foot garage and we're 7 feet over, you could come out up to 7 feet, give or take and. So we could have additional theoretically 7 feet to hold stuff. But I've got to admit though that, in thinking of this. Claybaugh: It'd be nice if you're going... Stuart Brown: .. . someday would hold our pop-up camper and someday we'll sell that. At that time the kids will drive and hold a third car in there so, you know the answer is yeah. There's 7 feet to play with. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19,2002 Claybaugh: I think it's also important to note that the exception in terms of throwing around the 7 foot dimension, in relative terms that's about a 23 percent approximately, you know adjustment to that variance so it's sizeable with respect to how the variance or how the ordinance is written so. That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions Deb? Kind: Nope. Blackowiak: I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you. Stuart Brown: Thank you. Blackowiak: At this point I will open the item up for a public hearing so if anybody would like to come up and speak about this item, please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any comments? Sidney: I'll start off. I sympathize with the applicant. However, I guess I do agree with staff s interpretation of the variance ordinance. In this case I do not see a hardship being demonstrated. The applicant does have reasonable use, as stated in the staff report. And in the case of granting variances, if there are unusual circumstances in the physical surroundings, the shape or topography of the land, then a variance would make sense possibly in this case. However we don't see that. Also, conditions which are unique and based on something that is not generally applicable to other properties in the area might be considered as well. However, as staff points out, there are a number, if not a majority of houses in the area that have 2 car garages. So in that case I don't see that we really have a hardship due to the physical surroundings or the fact that we have a unique circumstances, and I do believe we would create a precedence so I would not be in favor of granting this variance. Sacchet: This is a tough one. I understand all your points. I mean you're on a comer lot and you have front yard setback on two sides so there is a lot of space to play with. But then on the other hand we do have the ordinances are very clear about this and I do disagree with you on the precedence thing because the precedence thing, you may think it doesn't make a difference because you have enough room there and it's not going to impact the neighbors and it's not going to impact the city but it will impact the city when somebody comes a month from now, a year from now and says well, I need a variance to have an additional garage that goes into the setback and you gave it to this other person, now you should give it to me too. Right now we have a clean situation in this neighborhood. All the 3 car garages are within the setbacks. The majority ofthe houses are 2 car garages. Now given your's is a comer lot but based on the clarity of the ordinance and the precedence thing I can't support granting this variance for you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments Deb? Kind: I'll just add a quick comment. Just so the applicant knows and maybe people in the audience understand that the rule for granting a variance is the Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts, and the first one is that the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship and a undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use. And on the surface a reasonable use. a 3 car garage seems like a reasonable use but when you look at it a little bit more closely, the ordinance says a reasonable use is defined as including the use made by the majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it and the staff has demonstrated the majority of the comparable property has 2 car garages. And as my fellow commissioners know, I usually hang my hat on 5 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 this for granting variances because it does usually allow us to approve them, but this is a case where I can't find that this is considered a reasonable use by our definitions so I would have to recommend denial. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any additional comments? Claybaugh: Yeah. Likewise I can empathize as my fellow commissioners. I drove by the property. It. s clear that you take pride in the property that you own. Unfortunately, for the reasons stated, I share the position of my fellow commissioners. Blackowiak: Okay. Again I'll just add. Again we struggle with this all the time. That there is maybe a project that we like and can't say yes to and a project we really don't like and absolutely have to say yes to, and I think this is one of those that falls in the fonner. I'd like to say yes but our charge as a Planning Commission is to enforce the regulations and codes of the city and as we enforce them we have to follow certain rules and this is one of those times we do have to follow those rules. So I agree with the staff recommendation in this case. So with that I'll ask for a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission denies the variance request 02-1 for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage addition based on the following conditions or findings in the staff report numbers I and 2. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second it. Kind moved, Claybaugh seconded tbat the Planning Commission denies Variance Request #02-1 for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage addition based upon the following: L The applicant has areasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to O. Blackowiak: Next item on the agenda is item number 2. Sidney: Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Oh the. Sidney: The procedure. Blackowiak: Thank you. There is an appeal procedure. Any person aggrieved with this decision may appeal within, how many business days Bob? Help me. Generous: Four. 6