Loading...
3 Denial of Variance/Ednstrom CITY OF CHAHHASSEH PC DATE: 05/03/00 CC DATE: OS/22/00 .3 REVIEW DEADLINE: CASE#: VAR#00-7 . .&'IIo....LI."......, STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A request for a 1 foot variance horn the required 27 foot hont yard setback for the construction of an open porch lIfIå a {; foet ';arianee Kem the reqæreå 1 ( feet side yl!fà setbaeló fur the eenstmetieB sf a ellFj!sfl. I · · LOCATION: · · · Þ APPLICANT: · · 1834 Valley Ridge Trail North (Lot I, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5th Addition) Tom Edstrom 1834 Valley Ridge Trail North Chanhassen, MN 55317 (361-0580) . . PRESENT ZONING: . RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential, Low Density ACREAGE: 19,654 sq. ft. (.45 acres) DENSITY: N/A . SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting relief horn the zoning ordinance to construct an open porch on the hont of the existing home 8BEla ellfJ!eft te the siEle of the ¡misting gllfilge. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DlSCRETION.IN DEC.ISION-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. / « Edstrom Variance April 26, 2000 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. By a unanimous vote the variances were denied. The Commission felt the applicant has a reasonable use of the site and a hardship was not demonstrated. The original application sought two variances, one for an open porch and a second for a carport. The applicant is appealing the decision for the open porch only. New, detailed drawings have been prepared for the porch (see Attachment 3). This report has been updated. All new information is in bold. All outdated information has been struck through. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20 615 (5) e. reqHires a I Q foot side )'æ"El setbaek Oft ¡¡re Jerties zOBeEl RSf. Section 20-908 (5) a. states that open porches may encroach 3 feet into a required setback. BACKGROUND This lot is part of Bluff Creek Estates 5th Addition, which was approved in 1994. The home was constructed in the same year. According to the City's wetland inventory map, an ag/urban wetland is present on the site. It will not be impacted by this application. There is also a Williams Brothers pipeline easement on the south portion of the site. This easement is not affected by these proposals. The applicant would like to construct an open porch on the hont of the home aBEl a ear¡3ert OB tHe siàe of the garage. Beth aàditions The porch encroaches into required setbacks. (Note: The City is proposing an amendment to the ordinance to permit open porches to encroach 10 feet into the required 30 foot hont yard setback for houses built prior to February 19, 1987. This encroachment does not apply to this property.) ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking tVffl varianees: a I foot variance from the 27 foot hont yard setback permitted for open porches to construct a 7 foot deep by 22.5 foot wide open porch (the zoning ordinance permits open porches to encroach 3 feet into a required setback, thus the 27 foot hont yard setback) and a 6 feet '¡¡¡rianee Hem tHe F8!J:I!ÍF8à 10 feet side yarà setbaek for tHe eOftstmetieft of a ellf JeFt. 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 a two-stall garage is on site. Edstrom Variance April 26, 2000 Page 3 Reasonable Use 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-:famiiy home with a two-stall garage. The property owner currently has a reasonable use of the site. The existing home maintains the following front yard setbacks: 33 feet at the living space and 30 feet at the garage. The zoning ordinance permits open porches to encroach 3 foot into a setback, leaving 6 feet to construct a porch on this site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 7 foot deep open porch and is requesting a I foot variance. Staff believes that six feet is ample space to protect the ITont door ITom the elements and create an interesting entry to the home. Since a front open porch can be constructed on the site without a variance, a hardship is not present. ;;::::=: ': :::":: =:: ~~ ::::: ': ":'.: ::::: ':'::~ 2:S:S~~~~~~E~='"'E Ë~:S?::æ~:~ê~5:S';~ == ~..:':';:::'::,;-¡;;,.:;::., ":::::::.::::=" .:"~ ~efR1It ]5 FeL]HIÆå (See. 29 118). r':=::t =::~r= =:;:;; u:= :1;:::; =i~ ::~::n ~;'~::=~;;;~:':''';l~.:~ - :;:'::::: ~:~ =:::: b; p~:: ~::t: ~e::t ~~::::. :::e¡o,<eii eemmeftts ffOffi the fteigflBeF oppesiftg the variance for the ellFj!oFl. THe letter is attaehmeHt 6. Since the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, staff recOmmends denial. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not recOmmend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the fOllowing facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 Edstrom Variance April 26, 2000 Page 4 neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward ITom 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. The applicant has an opportunity to construct an open porch without a variance. 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 apply to all residentially zoned properties. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel ofland. Finding: Staff does not believe increasing the value is the sole intent of the request. 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 oflight and air to adjacent properties or increase the danger to the public, but it will allow a porch to be located closer to the street than other structures in this neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the variance request (00-7) for a I foot variance ITom the 27 foot front yard setback for the construction an open porch based upon the following: I. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. Edstrom Variance April 26, 2000 Page 5 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.~ Attachments I. Application and letter 2. Relevant City Ordinances 3. Survey and New Updated porch details 4. Public hearing notice 5. Letter ITom neighbor 6. Appealletter 7. Minutes from the May 3,2000 Planning Commission meeting g:\ptan\ck\boa\edstrom var 00-7.doc 02/24/00 14:54 FAX 612.937 5739 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1aI002 '., CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937·1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATlON 'APPUCANT: -ro rn ff)çrRo(( ADDRESS: I~'f ufJLLBf RIDGE TR.I1/L c¡'¡/t(JII!U~EnJ. mN. I T8..EPHONE(Daytime) 6/J-5L/:¿-to 7~ OWNER: l'?rrJ ED5771()m ADDRESS: /~;1/ U/t!.l.EY RIDGE 71ð1/{ c}/f}!lIJIl!:6E1J/, m /l.l I TELEPHONE: 6/;)- 3/;/ -ð i?8() 1 _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements - Interim Use Permit .t... Variance 1-7fJ _ Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit _ Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal . _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ; _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign - Site Plan Review' ..L ESC¡¡ Filing Fees/~i~~tst." If a..pPYD1 .ð- 50 UP/SPRNA A AP/Metes a Bounds. $400 lnor SUB) - Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ A fist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundarIes of the property must be Included with the application. Bw~d~ material saA1pf~r .......r+ "'9 iuilAllfHd U(itk site plan 1.."Ien'5. <T1t.'eRt) .Jix ftsll.:si... ~ ~w..i~ af the pla..~ nl...~t hð 3td,,,,lttcd. ¡"Gltsdill~ all An x L ~ lI:d..v...d ;-py cl. +-n~'2rø"'"'Y fnr A~,..h pl'!l" alia... - Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract \jDTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 02/24/00 14:54 FAX 612 937 5739 CITY OF CllANllAsSEN I¡ OQ3 . ....\ . PHOJECTNAME lOCAllCN I ß '? 'I /JALLÉI R lf) b t£ TR. R I L } c/lftfkl-ll¥:bE rV tEGALDESCRIPTION 'TOT.A1.ACREAGE WE11.ANDS PRESENT PAI::St:NT ZONING RECUESTED ZONING PRESENTLAND USE DESIGNATION ,/ YES NO i'1ECUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION FIEASONFORìHfSREQUEST YVfED ffDDiTJOIJfJ-L pftRklIJ6 71-Iflr /5 PROTECTED ¡:'/<,om WEfiTllEf e.QrWr77ofJ<Ç + 11 PRoT£CT£MÆ :If) 711£ rRo/!¡ 0;:' 7JI£ IIomi." This application must be comp!éted in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by appflcable City Ordinance previsions. Before fiUng this appUcation, you should confer with the Planning Depanment to detennine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A detennination of completeness of the appRcation shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written mtice Df appiication deficiencies shaR be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of appiicatlon. ThiS is to certify that I am maJdng application for the descnbed action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This appllca~on should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of- Tale, Abstract of TRJe or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this applica1ion and the fee owner has also signed this appiication. 1 v.ñ111œep myself infonned of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further undemand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibRity studies, ete. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information f have submitted are true and correct to the best of mYlu1owledge. Signalure of Fee Owner ApprlCation Received on 1) I wi CO Fee Paid 4=-76. (b The city hereby notifies the appncant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review eX1ensions a~ ap~ed by e appiicant. - '/¿ :0 3-Jg -()(Ì Signature of ÑJPI" Date .r::,'.' ...., .-7(7 ,...,ç) -/- ::? - t1"O -vv Date Receipt No. C.T e6l The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the statt report which wID be avaIlable on Friday prior to the meeting. Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed 10 the appßcanl's address. 'T .. To: From: Subject: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 3 0 2000 Chanhassen Planning Commission Tom Edstrom Request for Variance tHhl..n..,......";n """""'.'111'\,01 utPT I would like to make a couple of improvements to my home and am facing a couple of challenges in doing so. I currently do not have a place to park my boat and really don't want to leave it in the driveway. I would like to widen my driveway and park the boat back away ITom the street along side of my existing garage. In addition, I would like to build an overhang extending out /Tom my ITont door. We currently don't have any protected space outside of the front door of the home. My home is on a lot that has a pipeline running through it with an easement on one side with no room for access /Tom that direction. The lot line on the other side of the home is only 15 feet /Tom the existing structure. I want to blacktop an area next to my garage on this side of the lot. I also have a five foot easement to contend with on this side. The blacktop extension needs to be approximately II feet wide and run beyond the back of the garage. I also need to protect the boat /Tom the harsh Minnesota winters and want to build a structure to do so. I need to be granted a variance in order to meet my objectives. The distance between my garage and the lot line gets greater as you move back on the lot. So, the variance required does not run the entire distance of the requested driveway and new structure. I have enclosed my plot plan and marked it up to reflect the changes I want to make. Also enclosed is a drawing of the structure I would like to build. The proposed structure is exactly like one that already exists in my neighborhood; I believe this variance request is justified because what I am proposing to do would blend with a pre. existing standard within the neighborhood. In addition, my neighbor on that side has no view of the area in question. It is on the garage side of his home and there are no windows on his house that view the area. The second variance needed relates to the set back requirement from the street. I understand there is a 30 foot set back and my home is currently approximately 33 feet back. I have also been told that it is acceptable to encroach 3 ft into the 30ft. I would like to build a front porch area that extends out 8-9 feet from the home. We have three young children and the home has no mud room to take off winter boots and snow pants. The overhang would provide a protected area for this purpose and provide a front elevation that would blend much better with other homes in the area. Our home currently doesn't blend well with other homes in the area because most of them have a variety of angles and roof pitches that our home doesn't have. I believe this addition would enable the home to blend well with other homes in the area and provide the needed protection from the winter climate. I will need the city to provide a list of property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary. I understand that I will have to pay $1.50 per name and am willing to incur that expense. Please provide the necessary list. I appreciate the opportunity to make this request and any time you have spent reviewing it. I look forward to your response as soon as possible. Thank you! ;;l7;-J- 1834 Vi.e~~l North Chanhassen, Minnesota Home Phone: 361-0580 Work Phone: 543-6075 ~ , , , I Ii ~: f , , (-c ~, I'·· r ~ , ~. I ¡ ¡ , , ~ ¡, . r f r ¡ . ~, -. r L. \,' ~. ,--- t t:;':·~ I~ § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) storieslforty (40) feet. (7) 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) See. 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 ofOrd. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597-20-610. Reserved. -- ARTICLE XII. ''RSF' SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. 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) See. 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 centzr 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) See. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are pennitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 I appreciate the opportunity to make this request and any time you have spent reviewing it I look forward to your response as soon as possible. Thank you! ----- -------- ZONING § 20-615 (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pooL (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private keIUlel. (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 reference-Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. See. 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 tlùs 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 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Loti Whorl Frontag. .1 M,..urld At S,tback Un. (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. NIck I FI'II Lot. -. 1.0t 1.1n. . I . . I I I I 100'Lot WldUl N' J. I I -- I I IJ · 1ow1_ I I I I I I I .. - L__._L...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 ZONING § 20.632 .- 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, § I, 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 ofOrd. 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 ofOrd. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. See. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF' District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article Iv. (2J Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. <Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Sees. 20-617-20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE xm. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIQENTIAL 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 pennitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No.9 1213 ZONING § 20-908 increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12-15-86) See. 20·908. Yard regulations. The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measurements shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question, subject to the following qualifications: (1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed. (2) Ayard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for another building. (3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a comer lot; provided, however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks. (4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets. Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances granted from a required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments): a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies, open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet; unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be permitted by conditional use permit. b. The above-named features may project into any required yard adjoining an interior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above. c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a ten-foot minimum front yard. d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the following are permitted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory structures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balconies, breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one-story bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet. Supp. No. 10 1233 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For- KEYLAND HOMES PROPOSED RETAINING WALL . '\- ~ -\ , &1- \~ð' . .J.if (T', . 1 - ....::.. ~ 'þ - , . N PORCH _ Page 2 of 2 -' ~ ~ 'f1'7tJ~ _.. 1..._.. \ _ _ ~... ,.." · :'~::' ~r~~~~1;}.?~~~~,·~~~t'i~~~~~~~ ;''". .".. .. "--,' ~', [xIII BIT / j ! - \ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ,'I" i.., WI,\!¡ ,Kit;;:; ! \ \ \ \ Ñ \ Ñ II ~ . 0 I I ........ ~ l- -<[ 1\ \:JW4: 1\ > . i!51:;t3 W 00 : ....W ...-1 "- "'''-4: .... We.... W ..Jw : >-::o:z W z;:)4: l- ..J "'z 4: >!Ë I (.) ;:) ~ II) ..J \~ 4: ........ œ: C:f:¡ \~ ~ ~ \--= -~ ~ ( ~ ~ I N -0:> - i' , \'t¡ :: ;' -:í~. ~.;: -,. ê.--:J:. do"! of' '" ,._, t!- ~$... ... ..~'" ~I ..It~ z i 0 ~~~ 4~ f.~ '::t ¡: Q.. I- "'~'! en "t ~ "",2:\ ~.,¡, IS) "'\! t\- .. "", ,"I- !!Vl 00 ~ "' z \, [] . 0 t-I \ \ \ II " \ : I- ;... 'I ': I \\ « ~ ¡ . . > \I W . --1 fJ) \\ w "- ..... I- GJ lL. .J <C W ü --1 (I) o .~ II 111 À-1. .I \\ \ ~ ~ \.t1 .o-.~I .o-.~ L îJ \~\~¡ p ~ . . ~i ~ 'Æ D - "~-.9 It! · . ~ t:~ >:\1 ~. . · . : : , : : OJ :iI: : · . · . r~ ~ in: : · : · . · . \3\~ > s t-< 1 ..J !!I ~ Sl.smr ot><"..... ..... '::1/0 ,91 ~-J -'-1 0 \ \ ~ \ ¿ ~ tJ r!! d -' \ V\ :.. ¡:> . -,.J '0 ,~ ',-J '" 0 0 " .. 0 cf. { \ \ C' "I D'~ r ~ \ t! <t -> '^ I \ I i . ?l.o--.. I "Z- .,. ~~-' r ì-- b , ;., c;<) '-L .-J 0.... . o ~-L DII D. .-J::!: lL.... w I-~ (/)~ æ: 1-1 lL. ~ \:::: ~ -=:: -:>.::: \..t.i .0-.9 .0-.£1 I ; l .0-, .L- \~ ...... ~ .~~ I ~~~ \ ~ \~~\, \ \ ~~H ~ :::J..J !i! Jg" ~ ~ .r- l "\ . G ~~; \ <" \ ~ - \ ~ r ~'" ;if ~ ~~ .o-~ .:a: ~i \ \ '2~ :.- ~ ~~ ::0 '" '" \ 0 "- , .J ~ L~- i \~ 1-- I I \ ;.... ~ «) ~ '" T\Y^9XiI \ r 1l \ -- ... \ CJ(!) ::J::.. cl .:tf O¡ "\ · ~?J ~\ \ u b , tt:1- ... \ '< - <ló ~ ~ <U -0 \ ~ ~~~~ ~ \ "" \ \ \~ \ .. . ~ 1\1 :::E ... 0 \ u ....,; III 0 \ .!. 3t: !... ~I ~!I :!!! ~1L~ t;~ ~ III \ ~,¡c ~iii b \ ð\ "'- ~ . r= lD· ... r mxa ~II~ :::J :::I' . u.. ~~ "'II~ t! .0-.£1 .... ')'- ~ ) .0-.£\ .0-,£ 1\ L <:::. þ :--- íJ ~ \ 'ð\ ¡g~¡ \ ¡:::\ !:I \ í;;' 'J/ ú \ "" ~ ¡l J r;; <! cf- ~ \ß \ D C! '" ,.. -' , ~ ., ':: ~ z D t'), \--. :;- ., ,- ~ ¡, .. j: ~ \ "1- ~ J It :3 \ ," D Vi 0 '" J ~ ~ .£-.9 -- .6"l. ( lU ~ :1 \~\~ t .o 0 0 (Y ..J~ ÂI {)f'JJ JjJ LV"4,IQ j~ cr' NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 890 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Variance for a Carport ERIC & MELISSA NOYES 8622 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD M & JONI J NELSON 8610 VALLEY VlEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEBRA LYNN LUDFORD 8615 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH A & MARCIA S STRA 8631 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL K & KERI L JOHNSON 1806 VALLEY RIDGE TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J & SHARON M BEDUH 1798 VALLEY RIDGE TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT & KRISTlE A MOLDENHA 1792 VALLEY RIDGE TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK K & RACHEL DANDERS 1797 VALLEY RIDGE TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 APPUCANT: Tom Edstrom LOCATION: 1834 Valley Ridge Trail N. __________._n._ TIMOTHY G GEEHAN 1819 VALLEY RIDGE TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHEA V ANH SOUV ANNALATH & HATHAPHONESOUVANNAL 1829 V ALLEY RIDGE TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CATS PAW INVESTMENT LLC 27705 BRYN MAWRPL-S SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTI BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 April 10, 2000 -. ..... .....--...,... <~ . Attn: Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 L: , . -'00 CITY v,· \..jÚ·· ~n,,·. ""....C,'I Subject: Variance Request 1834 Valley Ridge Trail North We request that the City of Chanhassen and the Planning Commission not grant the variance recently requested by our next door neighbor (residing at 1834 Valley Ridge Trail North). It is our understanding that our neighbor desires to build a "car port" like structure, next to his garage, which would essentially be an open structure (with a roof and four poles) to be used for storing a boat on a year-round basis. The distance between the side of our neighbor's home and the side of our home is only approximately 27 Y, feet at the ITont end which faces the street. Of the total 27 Y, feet, 15 Y, of that distance is our neighbor's property and 12 feet is our property. It is our understanding that our neighbor is requesting a variance to the City of Chanhassen' s Code of Ordinances which requires a 10 feet setback for side yards. -:; We stron2ly oppose the variance for the folIowin2 reasons: · The already close proximity of our homes would be further impacted if the structure were allowed. (Essentially, only 15 -16 feet of open space would remain between our neighbor's structure and our home). · We desire to preserve the natural beauty and design of the newer homes built in our neighborhood and the City of Chanhassen over the past several years. One of the qualities that attracted us to our neighborhood was that all of the homes have spacious lots and our back yards overlook a wetland area. · The contstruction of a "car port" like structure would compromise the high quality design of existing structures in the neighborhood, as well as directly impact our adjoining lot. In short, such a structure is not aesthetically compatible with the area. · We are concerned that the structure would diminish or impair the property value of our home and other homes in the neighborhood. · The requested variance to build a structure is a self-created hardship. Enclosed are pictures of our home and our neighbor's home, which further illustrates the closeness of our side yards. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Lr'c~¿Z ~~~ Lyndell & Mary Frey 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 448-7470 - " Andrew J Kayati ill 8715 Valley View PIace Chanhassen, MN 55317 Planning Commission City ofChanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance for Carport, Tom Edstrom 1834 Valley Ridge Trail N. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Planning Commission Members, In reviewing the Request for Variance submitted by the subject resident. I have reviewed the request and the location of the proposed structure, which would be positioned adjacent to the property line. I am in opposition to this request and ask that the commission not approve this request for variance for the following reasons. 1) This wilI set a precedent within the development for future requests of this nature. 2) This will negatively impact property values within the development. 3) The locations and setbacks for each of the houses within the neighborhood were established to allow for clear lines of sight to the green areas adjacent to the development. This wilI impede that line of sight. My famiIy moved into this neighborhood over six years ago. The attraction for us was and continues to be the spacious lots with ample setbacks of the dwellings. Allowing this type variance wilI detract ITom the appearance that our neighborhood promotes within the community. Your rejection of this request, as our voice within the community, is the responsible step to take in order to maintain the high standards of family life in the city of Chanhassen. Sincerely, I - 51 £'~~y~ -- (952) 61-6389 , TO: Planning COmmÜ516i'1 FROM: CAROlE Crudup RE: Variance for carport, Tom Edstrom I have reviewed the request for variance submitted for the resident of 1834 Valleyridge Trail N. 1 am in strong opposition to this request. -'-Q!I" ,.....";>,...... I respectfully request that the'1noI approve this proposal for variance for the following reasons: 1. T¡;',:, locations and setbacks for the design of the neighborhood overseeing the wetlands nature preserve wer(..established to allow for clean lines of sight to the green areas and nature preserve adjacent to the development. These design lines were created to enhance the beauty and value of the surrounding properties. This clear line of sight positively effects values of homes in the neighborhood. If the ser clear line of sight is impededed it will negatively impact the values of the properties within the neighborhood. 2.A variance approval will set a negative precedent within the neighborhood for future requests of the same kind. 3. Storage areas for extra vehicles can be obtained and there is not a hardship for storage arttVin Chanhassen. Minnesota storage and other storage rental areas are available down the street on Highway 5 Md Auct.r.bon RD. We moved into the neighborhood 5 years ago and enjoy the beauty of our home overlooking the wetland preserve. The unique attraction of this neighborhood is the aesthetically well thought through consideration that the city planners are developers gall!, to the existing structures, which allow viewing between lots so that the whole neighborhood has an added value. Please do not ruin one of our most important points of distinction by permitting variances to structures which will ruin one of our neighborhoods valu~ble assets. Your rejection of this request, is a responsible step to take in order to maintain the high standards of family life, and the city's dedication to presemng the beauty and values of the.(Šurrounding our wetlands ¡ for all the community to enjoy. Sincerly, Caesar and Carole Crudup +8712 Vall2ÿ\f1ew place Chanhassen, MN 55311 612 448-5424 - f":,.,..v'""r......U^"!I-Jð.c:~E!\' To: Chanhassen City Council From: Tom Edstrom Subject: Appeal Denial of Variance MAY 16 2000 CHAf'4H1'\';)';)L.:.'~ rU'1"" I\,o 1.I¡;,..r I appeared before the Planning Commission on May 3rd to request a I foot variance ITom the 30 foot setback requirement and it was denied. I would like to appeal that decision. The reason for the variance was so I could build a structure on the ITont of my home to protect the entrance ITom the harsh winter weather. The structure would essentially be a ITont porch that would actually serve multiple purposes. It would enhance the character of the home, provide protection for the entryway, serve as a protected area to remove winter clothes/boots, and provide a sitting area in ITont of the home. I have attached several visual aides for your reference. Exhibit I is picture of our home as it exists today. As you can see the character of the home would enhanced by the addition of another roof line and roof pitch. Exhibits 2,3, and 4 represent other homes on the street that have ITont porches and existing roof lines that are typical in the area. Exhibit 5 shows the damage caused to the entryway since it isn't currently protected ITom the weather. In addition, the wood floor inside the home is experiencing water damage as a result of the rain and snow blowing in. The home really needs a ITont porch. The Planning Commission did indicate that a porch could be constructed without a variance. The problem is that the po~ch would be so small that it would only provide minimal protection and it would no~Òst effective. It doesn't make any sense to spend several thousand dollars on a structure that would have such minimal use. I want the structure to provide as much protection from the weather as possible. The additional foot would help insure maximum protection and insure a reasonable sized sitting area. I have enclosed working drawings of the proposed porch that show front and side elevations, approximate dimensions, roof pitches, and the concrete slab extension requirements. Exhibits 6A, 6B. 6C, 6D, 6E, and 6F represent the areas in question. Please review the attached drawings. It is my intention to keep the same roof pitch as the rest of the home. I want the structure to match the existing design of the existing home. My calculations indicate that I can come out only 7 feet from the house keeping the same pitch. Once I go beyond 7 feet the roof height gets too low. If my calculation is incorrect and I can go beyond the 7 feet I would like to do that. I want the porch area to be as deep as possible to provide maximum protection. The seven foot deep porch requires a I foot variance, if it can extend beyond 7 feet then the variance requirement could be 2 feet or so. I wanted to let you know that in the event the calculations are offby a minor amount. I appreciate your time in reviewing my request and look forward to discussing it with the City Council at the upcoming meeting. Thank you! ~;!;d~# Li--- //ð7JÎ (4jzúfJ1!l 1834 Valley Ridge Trail North Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Home Phone 361-0580 Work Phone 543-6075 Exfl¡Brr t?- ." \ \\ '\\ \ \~,:-:'~..,T '~."'~3.!o \ ' '~~::~j '" ..~, -:<; l"', '~m~'l?~¿;~:~~~t>:~ '.:'-.'.-:.":'7:. >. -,,~<. ~'~\'¡t..o¡¡;._ ~. ';;:~,~._. '!ð.';¡;::':·~.';'""'h""", :J:,,- ':'~~. ~'. -':-".~" :=-.__~~~., I , 1! ~ """ a.. :~~ £X!I¡B/I' .3 ~~ --~~d ?:-:m .; ~t.. II -.,..,... """'; iiIII-::..:.· III ., . ';.¡ It] U: ~ ~' "¡' 1'~ ., '" ~: - "..- '7~-_ m---····- ....,.-.-..,.... .Iß ~..m._._ II] II!. Irt :..__.. =':" -{ lr"¡. ".__Y ~;;)[ª.f~~~~~;i'?~~,;~~¥!'ii£;i;'~1Ä~'q~,,~, [XII/51! y -'..---4 'y.....;;t- fì· . ;. ^ .~. ...-,....':!::...~..".;.;.~ ."''''''.'.il "':::,.';:;J~ ',,"' A¡' '1 ...." ... ~~t.g~¡.;·. ,.. '::;;::t~m~;¡( .....'I;.'*'-' .~ :. ~ . .. .. .".. -.~ .. ., .. ., .,.,., ':,; . r;Ji];;¡: ';,¡ .;,.... , . . c; ;:r" :' """. .. .. ..~\~...:;:~:~:~:<~":-r:'"' ........ 11. ~~ j;, --,~ ;.:¡;~ .~;¡: M :~1 ';'~ :..:.., "'n ...."., , -: .~. .". ~;!:b.. H u .. ':~;:: c";;.';,; ~!~; u .. '.-' :~ >-W '" .~: ~ t X ·::"C..._:,;.. u .. '-',-- .' .. .. . .';,b ;.-:<" . . ... '.' i..¡ 'I"i ¡ \ ..... '1~ ;:',:';.:":;:- .,,""..,.",;;.. ;',:. ...... . .. .... ~:~:·N: .. ... ,I.,; £xfl¡8/í- 0 ,. ---~¿.,. ~., -.- .....--.,.. ,,- ""........-. ._r~ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3,2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Deb Kind and Matt Burton STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A FRONT YARD VARIANCE FROM THE REOUlRED 27' FOOT SETBACK AND A SIDE YARD VARIANCE FROM THE REOUlRED 10' SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT LOCATED AT 1834 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL. TOM EDSTROM. Public Present: Name Address Mary & Lyndell Frey Tim Moore 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North 1812 Valley Ridge Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item: Peterson: Any questions of Kate? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee want to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Tom Edstrom: Hi, my name is Tom Edstrom. Address is 1834 Valley Ridge Trail North, Chanhassen. I guess I'll start with the request for a variance for a ITont porch. As indicated, the variance is to protect the, two fold. To protect the ITont entryway as well as add, improve the aesthetics of the home. The home ITom the ITont view as probably you can see. Well, I don't have it on, all I have is a blueprint but it's a two story home that doesn't have any sort of overhang. Any sort of interesting angles to it so I'm trying to also provide a little more of an interesting look and actually I believe it would blend much better in the neighborhood because several of the other homes do have similar porches. And the reason that I'm requesting 7 feet as opposed to the allowed 6 is I intend to pave the area right outside in front of my, the windows. If I could just show this. That's the ITont of the home... put the porch out. Pave underneath the porch so that I have a little front sitting area to invest the amount that I need to invest is to build the structure. By the time you close it in, because I intend to enclose the front off with a little fenced in area. 6 feet barely leaves enough room to put a chair in there. And that was actually one of the questions that I did have is, does the variance relate to the roof line. Setback from the roofline. Does the setback requirement measure from the roofline or where you set your posts? Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 2000 Aanenson: The roof line. Tom Edstrom: The roofline. So that makes it even more difficult as far as the post placement. If the roof line can only come out 6 feet, the post placement, I mean there wouldn't be any porch there. There'd be no sense in investing that kind of money to make the structure so, and I don't really understand what the issue is with regards to being a foot closer to the street. What harm would that do to the neighborhood. To the neighbors if anything. So that's obviously your decision, not mine. So that's the first one. The second one is the carport. With the carport I'll start by discussing the options that I pursued outside of the carport. One being the garage of course. My garage is not long enough, does not have the depth to be able to store the boat. I don't want to store the boat out in front of the garage. I would rather it be removed from the street and have some degree of being hid ITom the street. With the Minnesota winters I think to leave it outside in an uncovered spot would be not a wise choice on my investment. It's a new boat. And as I was saying, I was going to look into extending the garage out the back. The property in back drops off so the foundation structure, in order to handle that became really cost prohibitive so that's why I wanted to put the carport on the side. At the time I submitted the request I didn't know exactly where my property line was so I have since invested in having it professionally surveyed to determine exactly where it is. There is as a result an error in the report that I'm not asking for to setback, or to encroach on the 5 foot setback. It says in there that I'm requesting to encroach into the 5 foot. I am not. I'm only requesting into the IO foot. The documents that I read indicate that a pre-existing condition in the neighborhood is possible grounds for approval. There is another structure exactly like the one I want to build on my street in the same neighborhood that was granted a variance from the setback requirement as well. So from my viewpoint it would, it's not going outside of the neighborhood's guidelines or aesthetics ofthe neighborhood. The structure would have, it would be well done. Tastefully done. It would have 8 posts, 4 on each side. It would have an enclosed front on it just to match the house, you know siding across the front of it. From a front view. It would have the same roof angles of the proposed porch so the two aesthetically I think would tie in with one another well. The structure cannot be, is not viewed from the neighbor's property. The garage sits on that side of the property. There are some homes to the back and over to the right quite a ways that would have a view of the structure. And it's my understanding that there has been an objection. My immediate neighbor to the right of me, but not any of the other neighbors in the neighborhood, or at least not the ones back behind me that would have view of the carport. Let's see. So I guess the staffs report on the objections to the carport I don't understand because there is a pre- existing condition in the neighborhood and then on the porch it's only a foot. And given the financial hardship that it would create to not get that extra foot. It just doesn't make any sense to build it if! can't at least come out 7 feet to have useable space under the structure. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Can you talk a little bit sir about the side setback. You said that when it was surveyed, I was out there today and there are the stakes with the pink flags on them and it did look like it was a little more than 15. I didn't measure. What have you determined or what has the survey determined was the actual length ITom the garage to the property line? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 2000 Tom Edstrom: Okay, let me. It's not much different but it's a little bit. This is the survey which shows 15.6... So it's a little over 15. The other thing that I would do however would be to put the carport, just leave it 3 foot back ITom the ITont of the garage to get it to have it set off more ITom the street and it's also, the further you go back ITom the property, the wider it becomes. Blackowiak: Right, yeah. That increases. Aanenson: That's almost the same as the original survey. Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you. A motion and a second for public hearing please. Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners prior to our decision, please come forward and state your name and address please. Mary Frey: Mary Frey. I reside at 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North. We're the neighbors to the right. And I'd like to speak on both issues. I guess the second one primarily. Wanted to respond to Tom's comments and also note that there are other, two other neighbors that have submitted letters. I think you have copies of them in ITont of you. And the other concern by us is that it is a tight fit between the two houses. If you can see the picture illustrates that. And when we bought our house 4 years ago we assumed that this was an existing structure and that was one of the benefits or the attractions to the neighborhood was the aesthetics and the wildlife preserve in the back area. And we feel that perhaps, and I'm not putting assumptions or words but Mr. Edstrom did move in last fall and did know that that two car garage existed and has been in the house for 6 months so I do believe it's a self created hardship. And there are other options. There are other storage options for the boat. And we feel that it would depreciate the value in our neighborhood to have a carport like structure. You just don't see that ITom my experience in Minnesota, very many carports. Especially in the Chanhassen area with the wetlands right behind it. So we are real concerned that, as you can see it is a tight fit between the two home structures and a carport would be bellied up right on the property line. So we respectfully request that you deny that and we have a real concern about the view and how the neighbors would react to that, as well as ourselves. On the first request, I guess we haven't really had an opportunity to fully explore that because there was not a public notice on that so we just became aware of that in the last couple of days. So thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Lyndell Frey: Lyndell Frey, 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North. One comment that I would like to make is in regards to an existing structure within the neighborhood. That structure is on Valley Ridge Trail South and through talking with city staff, that structure was put up not according to city permission. It was put up, and again this is just talking with a city staff member but it was not, all the proper permits and applications and things like that were not approved to put that up. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 2000 So I just wanted to bring that. If that is correct, then that is something that if you say well, one is up. If it was up because it was not approved by city planning to put up, then really you can't look at that as a pre-existing carport. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Tim Moore: My name's Tim Moore. I live at 1812 Valley Ridge Trail South. I think that has to do with some of the aesthetics of how close it's going to be placed to the existing house. There is one currently up as they stated on Valley Ridge Trail South that is further set back from the other houses next to it. I think that's a big consideration to take and then also what the value will do to the other houses around. And like you say there are other options for storage of the boat. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close? Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Anybody have any thoughts on this one? Sidney: Well Mr. Chair I'll make a comment. I agree with the staffs report. And I agree with the comments made by the neighbors. I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property without variances. And it seems like staff has recommended or given some options for construction of a porch as well as placement of a boat along side the garage. I do feel that the carport might be too close to the adjacent neighbors and would not feel comfortable_approving these two variances. Peterson: Thank you. Any other comments? Conrad: Oh sure. Yeah, it's good that the neighbors are in and I appreciate that but the decision is not because they're here. It's real clear that it's not something that is worthy of a variance. It's just outside the guidelines and there's no hardship so staff interpreted the rules right and there really wasn't a case that showed some kind of hardship so it's really not a neighbor, neighbor's complaining. I'm glad they're in and it's part of how government works but it's really real clear that this doesn't work. Peterson: Okay. Blackowiak: I agree. I have nothing to add. Peterson: No, I concur also. Tom Edstrom: Can I just ask about the porch? Peterson: I think, right now the public hearing is over so we'd have to re-open the public hearing again. When we vote and we can talk about it when we get done. I'll entertain a motion. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 2000 Sidney: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission denies the variance request (00- 7) for a 1 foot variance ITom the 27 foot ITont yard setback for the construction of an open porch and a 6 foot variance ITom the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a carport based on the following two conditions. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Sidney moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance Request #00-7 for a 1 foot variance from the 27 foot front yard setback for the construction of an open porch and a 6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a carport based upon the following: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: That motion is carried. I'd like to read into the record however that appeals ITom this board may be made by a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person by appealing this decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within 4 days after the date of this board's decision. It will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. You had a question? Tom Edstrom: The reason for the porch, I can understand the carport. Can you explain that to me I guess? What that is such an issue. Peterson: Part of it is. Tom Edstrom: . ..objecting to that I guess... Peterson: Well part of it is, if we grant a foot, and then do we stop at I Y2 feet? 2 feet, 3 feet or 4 feet? So we're somewhat obligated by code to say if you're not within the code, and there isn't a hardship, then we're obligated to deny the request. So even though a foot sounds like a small amount, where do you draw the line? And it's a tough decision. It really is. Okay? Thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A V AffiANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED PORCH LOCATED AT 8030 HIDDEN CIRCLE. SHANNON McCLARD. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. 5