The URL can be used to link to this page

1 Setback/Garage/Scheele Prop J- Z <t () - -.J a. n.. c:::( ~ ~ W I- - CI) i; ..:;/" CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: June 4, 2002 Updated 6/18/02 CC DATE: STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a 6.5 +-foot side yard setback variance (3.5 foot side setback) for the expansion of a garage. LOCATION: 3920 Leslee Curve (Lot 3, Block 2, Pleasant Acres) APPLICANT: Knight Construction 2989 Watertower Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-4949 Paul & Libby Scheele 3920 Les1ee Curve Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.39 acres (17,265 square feet) DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant would like to extend the existing garage to the north so that they can convert some interior space to a mudroom. The proposal would maintain the existing side setback of the property. However, since the building is already nonconforming, and it does not meet the required setback, a variance is required. 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. ~"J '^ i+ Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4, 2002 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-72 (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. Section 20-72 (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. Section 20-615 (5) requires a 10 foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF. BACKGROUND On January 8, 1957, the Board of County Commissioners for Carver County approved the plat of Pleasant Acres. The city discovered the need for a variance when the property owner applied for a building pennit to extend the garage. ANALYSIS (Updates to the staff report shall be made in a bold and strikethrough format.) Staff has reviewed the case files for variances within 500 feet of the property. No side yard setback variances have been approved in this area. On July 14, 1986, 10 foot front yard setback variances were approved for the four twin home lots at the end of Linden Circle which back up to Highway 7 (Var. #86- II). Staff has also reviewed the building pennit files for all the homes on Leslee Curve to determine if there are reduced setbacks for structures in the area. For all pennit files with surveys, there are no structures that do not meet the required setbacks. The applicant is proposing the enlargement of the garage, extending it toward the front property line. The end of the proposed extension would be 50 feet from the front property line and five feet from the side property line. Where the garage expansion connects to the existing garage is 4.57 feet from the side property line and the south end of the garage is 4.17 feet from the property line. Additionally, there is an 18 inch eave overhang extending out from the garage. City ordinance states "If a setback of a dwelling is nonconfOlming, no additions may be added to the nonconfonning side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements." Due to the orientation of the house to the lot line, the building extension and lot line diverge. While the encroachment lessens as one moves farther north, the addition does not comply with the side setback, nor does it lessen the nonconfonnity since the existing structure remains. Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4, 2002 Page 3 The applicant has, since the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 2002, prepared an alternative plan for the expansion. The revised plan reduces the laundry room/mudroom by one foot in width (the length would still be as wide as the existing garage; at the north end of the existing garage, the wall would be angled away from the property line to a point 8% feet from the property line, lessening the encroachment of the expansion; cutting back the existing prow roof overhang in line with the new overhang width; and reducing the eave from 18 to 12 inches. AdditionaUy, the applicant presented options that angled the entire addition away from the side property line, but did not propose any other changes, and a plan that located the garage on the western end of the building, which complied with setbacks, but required access into the house through the master bedroom. While the alternative plan shows willingness by the applicant to compromise on the plans and, at least for the prow roof line, lessens the nonconformity of the building, staff can not find a hardship. Pennitted 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 two covered parking spaces is present on the site. Reasonable Use The buildable area is quite large on this property. The house is set back 49.5 feet from the westem property line and 64 feet from Leslee Curve. However, the house has been constructed 4.18 feet from the east property line and 24.86 feet from the south property line. The required setbacks are 30 feet from the front and rear property lines and 10 feet from the side property lines. Unfortunately, it is only due to the siting of the house on the property, rather than any physical constraints of the property that the variance is necessary. The required setbacks do not limit the buildable area making it impossible to construct a garage without a variance. The property owner has the opportunity to make a reasonable use of the site without any variances. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single- family home with a two-stall garage. The owner has a reasonable use of the property. A variance is granted when a hardship is present. That is, the property owner cannot make a reasonable use of the site without relief from the ordinance. In this instance, the owner could construct a garage within the buildable area; however, they would be unable to extend the existing garage without a variance due to the existing nonconfonnity of the setback. Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4,2002 . Page 4 Nonconfonning Setback The existing garage maintains a nonconfonning 4.17 foot side yard setback. The zoning ordinance pennits a nonconfonning structure to be maintained or repaired but only to 50 percent of its value. It also states that a nonconformity shall not be increased. Specifically, the ordinance states if a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. The proposed garage addition does not meet the required 10 foot side yard setback and will expand the garage area at the nonconfonning setback. Due to the ~ 12 inch overhang, the point at which the garage extension begins would be three and one-half (3%) feet from the side property line. Were the variance to be granted, the building official has stated that any projections (roof overhang) less than 3 feet from the property must be of one-hour fire resistive construction. Staff is recommending denial of the side yard setback variance based on the findings of the staff report. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The owner has a reasonable use of the property. Approving a variance will increase the nonconfonnity of the setback and depart downward from pre-existing standards. 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 expansion of the garage will increase the value of the property, however, staff does not believe that is the reason for the request. Finding: The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. As staff has discussed, there are no prevailing standards in the neighborhood, nor unique circumstances of the property, that would deny the property owner a reasonable use of the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Knight Construction (Scheele) June 4, 2002 Page 5 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The home was constructed prior to the city being incorporated, so the hardship is not entirely self-created. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The 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. 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 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. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the requested se¥eft six and one-half-foot side yard setback variance (3 % foot side yard setback) for the expansion of a garage based on the negative variance findings (a. and b.) of the staffreport." Attachments I. Development Review Application 2. Reduced Copy of Site Survey 3. Site Survey 4. Proposed Expansion 5. Letter from Gary Knight to City of Chanhassen 6. Memo from Steve Torell to Bob Generous dated May 24, 2002 7. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 8. Revised Garage Expansion Plan dated 6111/02 9. Letter from Libby & Paul Scheele to Bob Generous dated 6/11102 10. Picture along Eastern Property Line 11. Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 2002 G:\pJ:¡n\ÞJ,'\J~\...lopm"'n!r...,i"'\'\\'¡¡rjancescheelc Received: 4/30/02 8:25PM; 04/30/02 Ô7: 52 FAX 612 937 ' '9 612 937 5739 -> KNIGHT KITCHEN & BATH; Page 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1a1004 ~ r 1-'., "1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 caUL TER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCA110N APPUCANT: ~(\~9 i\+-CM\Siíl{ri]ÖÍ\ OWNERj?(U~l ( Ubhl SC'hfel6 ADDRESS: 1- li 01 \ .? (" p. ~6 ADDRESS: ç~:iü~j~t3J TELEPHONE (Day time) { qCj.:J- )¡ 0 I L-jC~ TELEPHONE: /j5:i- ') L Î() - a :2fÞ g- _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit , Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROWlEasements - - Interim Use Permit .x Variance - _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Aneration Permit , . _ Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal , , _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review ..:i::... Notification Sign $ /5'D , _ Site Plan RevieW" -2L Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cosl"" , ($50 CUP/SPRNAClVARlWAPlMeles , and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB) - Subdivision" TOTAL FEE $ Building material samples must be submItted with site plan revIews. "Twenty-six full slze!2!!;!m copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8Yz" X 11" reduced copy of 1'· J . I'>. each plan sheet. A nst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. . - Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NDiE - When muniple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged lor each application. Received: 4/30/02 8:25PM; 04/30/02 07:52 FAX 612 937 . '9 612 937 5739 -> KNIGHT KITCHEN & BATH; Page 5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN '1ZJ005 . '-I PROJECT NAME ,Sf'.- HEE:L.F l.OCATlON _')/11. () If. S\..etJ c.ill..1l fJ LEGAl DESCRIPTION L..ù·T '3 0 JDt.. k '2 121 EA 5ftf\.J; Ar:R:¡::Y5 (\J--f Prfd J-J1tS5 b-f\/ J f\,( IN '/)J pslrf7't- TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNA nON FlfOUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES .&NO This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by apprlCable City Ordinance provisions. Before fiUng this application, you should confer with the Planning Depa¡tment to detennine the specific ordinance and procedural requIrements applicable to your apprrcation. A detennination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of appUcation submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. ThiS is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying w~h all City requirements with regard to this request. This applica~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· Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this appJica!ion and the fee owner has aiso signed this application. I wi'll keep myself infonned of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibUity 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 extenslon-?for developmeflt review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review exfeGre ~bythe applicant. Sl t? / vz.- . \ - . S~ reot ~~ J ~ ~ j ~:/ -;¡ C¡C~~Í-;VJ:- ·C~ S·? 6,)- Si' of Fee Owner Date ~! ! d '1i~'1O ïì 1 ")J J AppIic:aIion Received on " -z.. ~, ~ Fee Paid :'1 I l..-'::> ,- Receipt No. t. ¡,¿ t-. " 'The appncant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which wID be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the appllcanfs address. ;:; " " ~ ~ '" .;.' ~ ~ ~ 1 E ;":::! !;: ~ f ~ ~ , c , ¡:; ~ f ¡",¡ ~ ~ J< 8 .. ~ ~ '. ~ ~ ~ ~ U ri ~ : i ¡ ! @ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 . ¡ J,; , IH ¡ J .n l P! j! · rj t j · h: · J ¡ J'! ' , ! ¡ fIll]l: f t '1Ij' - . i 11'j'l j 'j 1 "f1II!.Jf~ If U .. t 'i Sf 'I ¡i Pli{' -I ri.-9. .! ¡Jf'll U ;j)I: .f '. .. HI $1· r~!M H Hi ~~ , I ¡ ! . I / . f < if ~ l .i ¡¡ " îl se ì! .' '.:; ~5 ~~ '" ~ ...¡ '" '. ~ ::; !!: è . J ..... i! co -' <" ::-:---- " ~ i ': ) .~ ; ~t I, -, n , , f ¡ . . 3 , ~ C/. -::.....~~ ':í < u " ¡ g II ~ . " u /j{ - 99'~- ::> ~ >- '" f5 0 ~ '" '" - ~ ~ ¡:: I!J ø ß ~ (/) X -- '" ~ c Î' . 1\ COo .1;\/0 :¡; "0 r>", - èij- (/) . ~ ~ / ~~ \....... ",'" , 8~ () ~... ~~ .......1 .o-!' C"") ~ I L.........~ I ~~'I.."\ O!J{- ~ ...~ ffi~ ::Effi ::Þ15 ~g: . ~\!¡ I ~'" ~ ::i I iSÏ<¡ ...0 I I!¡! 1'::1 t I ~i ..n. ",'" FO \!¡~ "'. 0" 00 ~"7 - fie o o :i ø z F (/) X '" '" Z ::; . ~ ..'" ci~ (/)0 -'" ~n. o\!5 ~F ~~ <y ~ M ¿g'o ..00 9 ~l . r;;'~l S ì- I --- / /j{ 1 ~ 1 ø / f / I!J i:J -ì 1 / 1 1 1 / --- ... - z - '" - ::E I ~ ::E I . ~ ~ I 0 z is I ... ~j!il!'lmfJ D ~ !, j ~ J I~-;~:;;-~ , r~"L~~ i iT ~i " ¡! IS! ~I ~¡...., ;' "p,~ I !II', .j - 1m, (, ' 1,,'J, ','LLlli ; , , ; ¡ I !i _~' ./\ . -- - ~ i iJ - -="--~IT~ ~¡, ---~--¡ :11 Ili'I 'I' ! ,,:1', :11', I:¡ 'I !I I'i III I' -'- a3uapIsau alaaq35 ---1 'I!! Ii ~, I .,-: , .;, ; ~ ':' l--::;' -:~', I I,;~-'-----'H-i ',' -+-:r-:- 1-- - - _ -.,~- ~ ¡ I ;1 I, 'i, ~~' ~¥-t.), '. /" :! I ~ '1: r¡ ~, r~~_-S~. - J I I ¡ , ~n-~' ~- I, I Ii , J'':-__.-'?::_-~-=::;:r- l_-=~~--! no -~~-t:, .: " , J,----¡:=r-¡" "if ',j JlI- -" -+-- 1\óoI, ----,..: II! :: ii, I 1'1 ¡' , ~.. I t,:,'" i I ~ ! ! -r _ 01 ~ ~7r= --._- __·F L .,-------.-;;.;¡.;' -------"":"- , t~=~~~-r= , -~ C .-~ lJ' I ';,~ i" ,I j :1 .' ;1 -' " j :1 .' , ::1 t ;i: . ~::7n'I\ .I\.! iiil'll h r ,II, ¡ii ;'¡I¡i,,; " II r¡- ~ ;1 ,: I ' 'i ,:J ic'~"'-"4 i ::~~I: \ li:iF-==~'ìl: It.~~: ,¡""-"'= , 11'~__.J5: Ili;----"",;: . r-,1)¡I,-.JjI/IJ 1~<:: ';i",1, rf-'-~ ,; ,- I, .. : kil'l ~"-:" If', ..... "'ii"I",), J' \,t!...l.:l~, ~!~,~rl·~.~-=:-"=". :~¡'il. ,I:, .' i¡!:!: \ J;'" ~__'_~\I'I 1t1·. i1:::-~-;:±iJ~ \{T }1¡ll:"IJ'__-t; \: I.~--~~:; I ~':~I,' ~: :) . ~ ;1"; i'l iif~~"~11 . ¡iILJ·'¡ l:rn~ ~Ii il. 1'1 .. 1!~'I'i;11 > " i::'!'~'____7:¡__--]'f krL~,·,í:I)/ !' --; ,/!I ' -{:--__J li)1 ',i! II' I ~! .' .III! I ¡,I : t, 'I;: ;' ¡ .~~:-\! ¡Ii . · ! \ Iii " I ~ì!-!'\--t I ,I,., ___, . \ .~ L----- I I. I ,.'¡flll:. ", ·r " 'I ',il" '~, I' I: iil'lil l;'I\ 'iI ..-"'t' - 'r Ii " IC , I I' , I: I :~ ¡ I , ~ J . 11: ~ ~g!!! - City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kitchen & Bath Showroom 2989 Watertower Place' Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-4949· Fax (952) 361.4950 Variance of3920 Leslee Curve Knight Construction Design, Inc. is requesting a variance to extend the existing garage at 3920 Leslee Curve 14 feet on the front elevation for the purpose of adding a mudroom 1 laundry area. 4.5 feet versus 10 from the property line. The undue hardship is caused by the house being off centered on the lot and by the shape of the house on the lot. This addition is not increasing infonnality. The granting of the variance would improve and not be detrimental in the neighborhood. Granting of the variance will fall within the guidelines of the existing neighborhood and will not increase the informality The purpose of the variance is for the sole increased usability of the property. No self-hardship has been created. Granting of the variance will no be detrimental to this neighborhood, but will only help improve curb appeal for all with the proposed architectural plan submitted with this application. J¡ The granting of the variance will have no effect on adjacent property owners. ,L .., 4 ; r) r{C(:IL~{..'-·""'t.\>~~ '~' ¡;....- -A h'L? (~\ Co ,,- .'. (.' T' ~ -r I '.J...o-", (" ~. '0 Cr A. :..;)'-f.r\¡(j-5.," Vi'~ '-:- /L_U L r-. Sinc~rely, .(''''>1-;'' ., I~ .--,,/ I '---<----.. ' r--~" Gary Knight Knight Construction Design, Inc. License #20022883 . Bonded. Insured ..'....,... ~~_.-. - MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Steven Torell, Building Official ~ FROM: DATE: SUBJ: May 24, 2002 Review of variance request for a 7 foot side yard setback variance For the expansion of a garage at 3920 Leslee Curve Planning Case: 2002-4 V AR I have reviewed the above request for a variance. The following conditions would be required: I. Any projections ( roof overhang) less than 3 feet from the property must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. (ìisafcty/st.mcmos/plan/variancc/3920 J,cslcc Curve NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4,2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variance for a Garage Expansion APPLICANT: Knight Construction LOCATION: 3920 Leslee Curve NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Knight Construction, is requesting a 7 foot side yard setback variance for expansion of a garage addition on property zoned Residential Single Family and located at 3920 Leslee Curve (Paul & Libby Scheele). 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 Bob at 227-1131. 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 May 23, 2002. ~~ Smooth FGed Sheets"" JARY S KALLENBACH & þXIE S WELLMAN )61 LINDEN CIR XCELSIOR MN 55331 ANA A NELSON 167 LINDEN CIR XCELSIOR MN 55331 'EVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY 51 LINDEN CIR KCELSIOR MN 55331 ARTHA W HEIBERG 41 LlJ':DEN CIR (CELSIOR MJ': 5533 I ¿NNETII M WICKLUND & WREA S GOLAJ':D 70 LINDEN CIR CELSIOR MN 55331 .RRY A & CHRISTtJ':E A DRAHOS ! I LINDEN CIR CELSIOR MN 55331 JŒN L NELSON ; I LINDEN CIR CELSIOR :'11'01 55331 O\tAS & LINDA L SANDER !J LINDEN CIR t'ELSIOR MN 55331 VID H & TRACY L LUNDQUIST ·9 LINDEN CIR -:ELSIOR ~IN 55331 tRANCE L & KATHERINE A PICHA ó LINDEN CIR ~ELSIOR MN 55331 CHERI L RILEY 3960 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARIAN 1 PECK 3950 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD E & BONNIE G LARSON 3940 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ARTHUR R & SUSAN C ORNELAS 6576 10SHUA CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALAN R & DIANE REUTELER 3930 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PlIILlP 0 & DEBRA 1 IIANSON ·100 I LESLEE CR V EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE W & ANGELA K LEACH 3910 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK ORTNER 3920 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 INGRID B & KEVIN R HIGHLAND 4021 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD 1 DORSEY & SUSAN K HAUN-DORSEY 394] LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160® JOHN D & ELIZABETH W CHANDLER 536 DIVISION ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TODD 1 BENNETT 3931 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MOUNT OLlVET ROLLING ACRES 7200 ROLLING ACR PO BOX 220 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KELLY M MILLER 6590 JOSHUA CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOD E & SUSAN M SCHILLING 3911 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL R & CAROL M KARLSON 4031 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 5533t TROY D & KELLY M KNEWTSON 3901 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DIANNE E BARTZ 3881 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CAROL RIDDLE 4000 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN E COBB lR & JULIE A NILSSEN·COBB 4010 LESLEE CR V EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Smooth Feed Sheets™ )OUGLAS L & DENISE S FOOTE 1871 LESLIE CRY ;;XCELSIOR MN 55331 -EONARD H & SELMA I HEIN fRUSTEES OF TRUST 1930 LESLEE CRY ,XCELSIOR MN 55331 ODY MARIE CARLSON 1041 LESLEE CRY ,XCELSIOR MN 55331 'AUL R & ELIzABETH A SCHEELE ;9èO LESLEE CRY ,XCELSI0R MN 55331 \RADLEY E & KAREN J VONRUDEN ;910 LESLEE CR V ,XCELSIOR MN 55331 JETTY A CARLSON 10è0 LESLEE CRV 'XCELSIOR MN 55331 I1ARLES R & CYNTHIA BULTNER .900 LESLEE CRV ,XCELSIOR MN 55331 ;REGORY J ERICKSON RT I BOX 95 :XCELSIOR MN 55331 .YNN HAYES VANALLEN 931 CRESTVIEW D XCELSIOR MN 55331 'AVID A JR & RHONDA J SCHOELL 860 LESLEE CRV XCELSIOR MN 55331 GARYE&MARY A NUNNALLY 3921 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN & LAURIE ERICKSON 3850 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY W & AMY BACHLER 3911 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAIG R & MARY L COURTNEY 3901 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 VERNON R & JOAN D ¡SHAM 4030 LESLEE CR V EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAN T & DEBRA AMENT 4010 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD E BELLERT 6MI MAPLE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL DAVID KAMMERER & CHRISTINA JUNE MONETTE 4000 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL R RYAN & ELLEN J HEM-RYAN 3850 MAPLE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN T & MARY E ALDRITT 3946 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160@ RICHARD & BEVERLEY KINSMAN 3920 CRESTVEIW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAY M & ANNE M CECKO 3910 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS R & KAREN J ERDMANN 3900 CRESTVIEW D EXCELSIOR MN 5533 I PATRICK & PATRICIA FAUTH 4011 GLENDALE D! EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROGER A & JOANIE KNIGHT 4001 GLENDALE D! EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JON P WITT & MARIT SOLHEIM-WITT 3931 GLENDALE D! EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RANDY J & LORNA HILL CUNLIFFE 39èI GLENDALE D! EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES & MARY COLLEEN WEBER 391 I GLENDALE D! EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JERRY L & KRISTIN L KORTGARD 3901 GLENDALE D! EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBIN THOMPSON RUSH 3810 MAPLE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 0;\')' (l '".,,1< rT~. \) :. vJ 1"'T~.--0f S~, ,..,,~ n ~ L~~-- , ' , : \ ~bb~ """,OW<K !~ ' -- LI. '!I "- I \, ,.- -'..-.-. _n .-.--L. - I , I \=t ·---L 'h ---,~ --........" / '- I 'k'~ J ,\,,1 < ov ~." -\ -(¡,-I'''' '1}tJtr- lip I\<' ...."".' "" J¡. )t,( I,"~)"~ ," ',I ~l.,J'\' \¡'( I 1;",\1,."1 J') s... (JoJ'~" I b' I I / J'~~' ! , \\~ -~ J . \ i /1. ~."\ x.,I, 1, -' 0(\·1e. i j ~ ,.--.- -\ -..--.-----" -_. . , 0'{II{O¿ 1- .- l' I v ("". I..v·· I t- ,;".-' ~_~-"_" ' I· ---- .-- (----'JI'",·J, -) ( Uj \ , I I I ! I I ! I II ì I , I, . i I )3 ~I(t'r __.~ . I \ ,I " ,..1 IE;) ! REVISED PLAN SCHEELE RESIDENCE L;bb~ <: pðJ ¡ .,..,- "!;'~'0" , ~z -- - - --- I , í I 8; Deð¥ ßo b .1", r'T! J/'~, I' -- l"( 11' / ' / r / '..'./ t/ // , / .//1 'f/,. -" ! // / (, [/, Á. <j) ¡;:- /"J. ' (--1-. /~, tfi'{ '. C f ?;? /' l/ :J-' §., tI>',7.< .,.' , 7~ r'fl ß'·j-· 1 ')7" N"/ l, ---v ,4/ ·.ð· ,~ I j ,.( c./ ¡.f ",,/,., £..' ^../ ,0' ~ ," .,.- / . ! . ""..l " .' /' \,ye/I'111è. n' ~ I ,I" I / /. ~<// ( Y .. I) ,,,' / - ;/ _./" i , i / / ./"'~ j) -.----'.. .j' '/ / {/, -1'~;"(· ....... /. ".../,,'..1 _', f ¡.. .:__.:./ " ., .L i·C,./ /<J "....>- . './ ,-;-/,,/"1:"/ íj' . ,.Ii/ -"-4- ,r/, .1///- ;/ [.;r , / ) Î:l' .' f /'" ,'" ·1 ,.r "''''/,:.." / ..' --", . .f /' I I",: ...J'. . / ¡> // (, .'" ~ ..., j..( . /) !~ ".0:1 ,I j / .' .,',.' I ,. ,', /{/. . ,/' ,0.,-1 r -' / . ",---.~-/'. <,.," (,,.' .//<....:'.J> / /' l ì.,r I .' )' Iv /'/ ¡ J. ,,) ?'~"/, ¡e ,I,' - '..I 70 _C /7 ," . ~, ,-.(, :;1..,/ ?/. t. . " (:/~ 'I tI / /.' ". . ~'.";' ¡c" f' ..// ,. ¿/ .,/ì'·'::~', (/ We< 0?jf;.r- I I"~ /.. (/' j . -/ ,r / ?" ¿7 ,:.- /7 L/ / "1.< / / I {' -( "', ,......,. /¿..1 / .Â , ;:.~ - / ' / /. , 1/ ,..' / .' ."r t / .. . ,/ ./ ,.- /' (('" / /, '/," /ý ".,IJ}/../ . ( / () U¿;"<" ~ I '/ .J ...- v:····; j .' /Î /,'.. U/·,~_·· , / . ( "I " í ./ .;;;.;-.1...... - , r' ..' '- /, <I:' ",/.'.:~/ ··",i .·l '" / . /' é· // " 0111102- )Ý >-<- i ,t,.&c..I.,....L,.'( 1.,.....,~.., '4~" .. ~./ (0 It~-j I ./j ._/., ..?'/'\,,«--.. , -' ..// .. . "-<--- ó' .J/_L",-. ..1 '7 / .f /.. ,'C ~) / ,~ .-/.., . ' ~.. :".,,' .'~... ,/ /' /' -' /-" "j\ ',,/, , .'.,,~¡" '- ' - -' ~/:.>. . .. '. ··c ,......'_...... ~. // I .r '..--<--. . :_"./ ,:. -~ /" -4. :" .'1...--'--_ c:::' ...~..J.. I , /' ,,~ .,..' ì .... 1'''--;/. ( c , , / )/ .,/ .'/' j" c;;7 - Þ'/~,'£'(j:_' I Æ e:A~ ./ , ..----;/'/.. /....'-_..,_", ",:-:" /'" ....L-. ,. .' .I/" '"Í / !:(é_V c:/ /. /./":'... CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 4, 2002 Vice Chair Sidney caIled the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Steve LiIlehaug, Craig Claybaugh, VIi Sacchet, Bruce Feik and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, COßU11unity Development Director and SharÍnin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR A 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3920 LESLEE CURVE (PAUL & LIBBY SCHEELE). KNIGHT CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Libby & Paul Scheele Dave Harrison Leonard & Selma Hein 3920 Leslee Curve Knight Construction, 2989 Watertower Place 3930 Leslee Curve Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff anyone? Lillehaug: 1 do have one quick question. You indicate you have a, it's just a little over 4 foot is the existing distance between the property line and would that be the edge of the house or would that be the actual eave? Aanenson: No. That would be the actual edge of the garage. The eave actually extends into that, and we've modified that ordinance because the way the setback is interpreted is that you don't have to count an architectural feature, but we thought in the past when we've given relief on variances, sometimes that's used to the benefit. For example, a bay window or something like that where expectation is they're going to meet the 4 foot but the bay window goes in so what we've amended the code to say is when you're giving a variance, that architectural feature can't protrude into that and with this case, the 18 inches goes beyond that. And just one other point of clarification. This 4 Y2 feet at this point, if you can see. It's moving this lot line swings out so the worst point is down at this as far as the closest to the property line. As far as compliance and as it's moving this way it gets past the 5 foot. So you're at like 4.18, 4.57 and it's moving further away. Not more than a foot though but. Sidney: Any other questions of staff? Okay. This is a public hearing. Oh excuse me, 1 guess the applicant, if you'd like to make a presentation. Please come forward and state your name and address please. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Dave Harrison: I'm Dave Harrison with Knight Construction. Okay, do I need an address for that? Sidney: Sure. Dave Harrison: Yeah, I office at 2989 Watertower Place. That's in Chanhassen. We understand the side lot setback but the reason, a lot of the reason for this addition is actually to put a first floor laundry room into this home. Right now the laundry room is in the basement and the Sheele's travel 2-3 times a year with up to 3 weeks at a time and when they travel, Libby's parents come and stay. Using the basement laundry is very inconvenient. That's the main reason, or actually part of the reason for the addition of the garage. Why they're going out because we'd be adding a laundry room in the rear of the garage. The setback issue~ I mean we understand what everybody's saying but it's kind of like this was the first house built in the subdivision so it's kind of dictated by where it is and they're kind of, they're kind of stuck the way it is. That's why we're asking for the variance because of the pre-existing condition. I know it's stated in here. I guess that's why we're in asking for the variance. I guess I don't, more than that I really don't have much more to say other than there is a hardship issue with the basement laundry. Bringing it upstairs would definitely make it a lot more functional. Okay? Questions? Libby Scheele: Hi. My name is Libby Scheele and I live at 3920 Leslee Curve as stated, and I appreciate the commission setting rules to... As you can see we're very close to the lot line here. Our foundation was the very first foundation dug in 1957 and when they dug it, it was a giant field. Then they put the roads in afterwards. So the house to the east of us, that you see in this picture, was one of the last houses built and they are close to us. Our foundation was built first. Their's was second and as you can see there's a row of trees here and the garage would still be setback from their garage by about, I don't know, by about 15 feet. There are no windows on that side of their garage for their house so it wouldn't block any view and as you can see in this survey, we're set back from everyone else. So what we're asking for is 14 feet that would allow me to put a mud room in the back and my mother has had 2 knees replaced and she hates doing laundry at my house so I request that we do this for my mom. Thank you. Sidney: Any questions for the applicant? Slagle: I've got a couple. Is the, if you put a mud room in the back, would the new extension be your garage? Libby Scheele: Correct. Correct. What you see here is, it's about 20 feet deep, the garage so by bringing the garage out 14 feet, that gives us 10 feet in the back of the garage for the mud room. We could not put a mud room in with it as it is now. It isn't deep enough. It's just 2 cars. Now we're not making it a 3 car garage. We're keeping it a 2 car garage so it will be real consistent with everything on this street. Slagle: Let me ask this. I visited the site yesterday, so if you saw a car just sitting out I apologize. But it didn't seem to me that you were using the garage for the cars. Libby Scheele: The reason that we are doing that is because 20 days ago they began preparation for the remodeling in our kitchen so what you see in that garage right now is the old kitchen cabinets so we haven't been able to get in there because they're storing things there. And we are moving the existing vehicles around the side of the house at another time, and our kids are home from college also. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4,2002 Slagle: So you would use the garage though for the cars? Libby Scheele: Absolutely. Can't wait to use it again. Yeah. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: I have a question too. Libby Scheele: Yes. Sacchet: How difficult would it be to put a laundry room in a different spot? Libby Scheele: It's possible, and not as convenient. We thought that if we were to -do it in this new section, then we could vent the dryer directly outside. And in the other places we'd have to vent either up through the roof or, I don't know how we would do it. And the further you are from the outside of the vent and the dryer, the less efficient it is and in newer construction they're often having it right next to the outside so I thought this would be the best way to vent out also. Sacchet: But there would be alternatives basically. Libby Scheele: I can't think of anyplace right now. I can't imagine where we would put it. The laundry room is a pretty good sized room for a family of 5 so, I can't imagine where it would go. Paul Scheele: We're talking first floor. Libby Scheele: Yeah. We're trying to make it first floor living. We're getting older. We'd like to retire here. His parents, my parents, they love to come here except they hate the laundry in the basement. Sidney: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Libby Scheele: You're welcome. Sidney: Now it's time for public, oh. Would you like? Libby Scheele: Our neighbors would like to speak. Sidney: Oh, yeah now we have an opportunity for that during a public hearing and I'll open it up for a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this topic, please come forward. Paul Scheele: Yeah, I'm Paul Scheele. I wanted to speak in support of the question that was asked. Is there another place to do it? If I could have the architectural plan up on the board again please. Aanenson: The site plan or the architectural? Paul Scheele: The architectural plan drawing. As you can see in this end of the, this is the kitchen where we come out of the house. All the rest of the first floor living is completely filled, it's a 2 bedroom. 3 bedrooms up. Master bedroom is attached to the back so really in terms of looking at options for extending the first floor to accommodate for a laundry room/mud room, this is what was proposed. This is the best we could imagine. Now of course here's the existing Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 line of the property right now. The front of the garage is at this point, so we'd be taking a little better than half of the back of the existing garage and just adding that plus a foot or two in the front. But I would like to say something else. In comment to the choice to do this work at this time. We've lived in the property 12 years, and we have had the good graces of my in-laws and my parents taking care of the kids in the years that we've been there, but the condition of the garage floor and the foundation due to settling, due to water running in, all of that garage floor really does need to be replaced as well as terribly cracked, heaved. It heaves every winter and so on, so there is an advantage of doing several things at once that we were hoping to do. The other thing that we were concerned about is with the addition, to show that this prow roof which does extend considerably beyond the current wall of the garage is going to be in excess to what we're proposing at this time. The roof line. It's not going to come out as far as the existing prow that's there right now. And I know that's, it may be moot to what we're talking about in ienns of the regulations that are there. I just wanted to point that out. . Sidney: Anyone else wishing to address? Leonard Hein: I'd just like to say. Sidney: Please come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record please. Leonard Hein: Yes. My name is Leonard Hein. We live on 3930 Leslee Curve, next door to the Sheele's. They're just wonderful neighbors. They've done so much to improve their property and if they want to keep on improving their property so they can live a life that they like to live at their home, I say let them do what their plans show. They're just wonderful people and they're improving on the property all the time. Always and almost every day so keep that in mind. Sidney: Okay. Slagle: Don't go so quick sir. I have a question. Are you on the east side or the west side of their property? Leonard Hein: We're on the west side. Slagle: So you're the one that has. Leonard Hein: It doesn't interfere with us. Slagle: So you've got the luxury that there's a lot of green space between your house and their house? Slagle: Okay. Ijust want to make sure that you're not the one who's right there on the property. Leonard Hein: Yes we do. Leonard Hein: No, but...l know the neighbor on the other side hasn't objected to it at all. He said it was just fine. .. .cut the cinnamon rolls and call it square. Slagle: Okay". where you get those. Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Feik: I have a couple of comments. I very much like the look of the renovation. I think it updates the front façade a lot with the addition, but still I'm having a hard time getting my arms around the undue hardship. There seemed to be a significant amount of buildable land around the property that could be used to construct a mud room, a laundry room versus annexing part of the garage and moving the garage forward so I'm having a hard, help me out on the panel here,.but I'm having a hard time with the undue hardship criteria here so that's my concern. Slagle: I've got just one thought and if I can Madam Chair, if I can ask the applicants one more question. I apologize for not asking this. If I'm looking at your diagram of your house if you will, for lack of a better example. Have you considered this back comer? I don't know what's in that, in your house at that point. Libby Scheele: In that back comer that is where I work. That's my studio. I'm an àrtist and I work at home, and part of the m~d room was so that I would have a sink for my business also. But that's not hardship. I can wash my brushes out elsewhere. Slagle: I guess I'm asking if you've got this comer section of your house that's left if you will, why couldn't. Libby Scheele: Oh in there? I can't put it there because that would be close to the lot line again in the back. Slagle: Well I understand that. Libby Scheele: That would be the same as out the front, wouldn't it? Slagle: Understand but if I look at a picture and I remember your house, it's fairly protected from an aesthetic standpoint. I mean you've got brushes and trees and what not going back there. I guess I just wondered why you hadn't considered finishing that section off and making that perhaps, I'mjust throwing this out as an idea. It'd be less visible to the general public. Libby Scheele: I think that's about maybe, how many, 5 feet by 8 feet. And I don't think you could put a washer and dryer. Slagle: 9 by 14. Libby Scheele: 9 by 14, that'd be pretty. Paul Scheele: On the property it was originally designed as a ranch style home. And the two bumped out on the back are additions to the house. Libby Scheele: And I don't know how you'd put a mud room in there. Paul Scheele: How you would access it from the front of the house. Libby Scheele: Yeah. We were hoping to keep the, where you would come in. Okay. It would make the most sense on this house because the other side of the house is the bedroom wing and a mud room wouldn't be as appropriate entering from a person's bedroom because there's no doorway to that side of the house. Slagle: Okay. Just trying to think of possible. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4,2002 Libby Scheele: Yeah. Paul Scheele: The bedrooms are all on that other end of the house. It would be lovely to put the garage next to the kitchen. Slagle: On the west end. Paul Scheele: Exactly. It would be lovely and it's configured completely wrong for that. Libby Scheele: Yeah. And my neighbor on the east side just had a baby yesterday. He said I'd be there but they're at the hospital but he's totally fine with us doing this. Boy, I don't know. To prove hardship. I know that we're aging. My mother has had 2 knees replaced. I don't know what's in my future either. I want to plan ahead and we're trying to make the best ii1Vestment with our money and we thought we'd put it into the house so we looked at the house and tried to figure out the best way to make use of the land and the house. And I don't know, it seems to be the most logical place to put it. I know it would mean a lot to me. Slagle: Personally if I can speak, I'm hoping you can tell me why you can't use that back. Libby Scheele: That back area? Slagle: Yeah. I mean personally. Maybe your construction guy has a thought. Dave Harrison: Can I have that. Aanenson: It doesn't show. The simple answer is, you're coming into a bedroom. The way it's configured now, you're coming into the back hallway, but it doesn't show up. Dave Harrison: Right. Slagle: Can you say that again Kate. Dave Harrison: You're talking about that back comer, right? You're talking this area right here? l ~ Slagle: Bedroom work place. ~, ~, ï~ .~. ¡ k'" (' , !¡ ! ! l ¡ ; , , i l ~. r k:' I Slagle: Yeah. So is that a bedroom? Dave Harrison: Now right here is where you're talking about? Aanenson: Coming into a bedroom as opposed to. Slagle: But isn't that her studio, didn't she say? Her work place. Dave Harrison: Right. Dave Harrison: And this area here is actually Leslie's studio. You're coming in through a studio. This is garage here. I'm trying to configure a mud room and a laundry area back in this room. It's kind of like, you might as well put it next door. It's not even part of the house anymore. Going through the studio, there's a fireplace that sits in this comer. There's really not access to accommodate that mud room area. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagle: Fair enough. Ijust didn't know what was in the house. Dave Harrison: Right. Libby Scheele: There's no crawl space here so the plumbing would have to go outside. Dave Harrison: Right, we get into plumbing issues and things like that. Slagle: Fair enough. That answers what I was looking for. Sidney: Okay? Sacchet: Well I really sympathize with you guys, the applicants. I mean it's making your parents happy is definitely a hardship in it's own right, if it's not in place. However, the framework that we have to look at this from the Planning Commission. Our task is basically to interpret whether the rules are being applied in a reasonable way and the rules are pretty clear that when we grant a variance in a case like that, there has to be a balancing factor like a decrease of the non-confonnity. Now in your case you really don't decrease or just very slightly decrease the non-conformity if you don't have that roof sticking out. So even though I would like to let you do what you want to do, I think from the task that we've given as planning commissioners, we have to apply the rules, otherwise there's no point in having the rules. And on that basis I have to agree with the staff report. But I would encourage you to pursue this issue further with City Council to see whether they can give you more leeway with that. Or altematively a route that I could see how I would like to go with this is, I feel you haven't really sufficiently explored altematives. Now we looked at one alternative that Commissioner Slagle touched on and that didn't seem like necessarily something that works, but I feel personally, I'm not sure about that. That alternatives could be looked at a little further and if that's the route we would want to go, I would suggest that we table the variance so you wouldn't have to apply for it again and altematives could be looked at a little further. That's where I stand. Sidney: Craig. Claybaugh: There is no dimensions on the plans here that I have with respect to the mud room size but it seems like a fairly spacious mud room. Again, I agree with my fellow commissioner here with respect to the framework and what we're charged with. I think a combination of creativity and compromise could potentially go a long ways towards mitigating the problem that you have. Obviously we're not here to design it but one thing that strikes out at me would be to potentially tum that mud room 90 degrees and extend the west side of that single stall out. That would be one alternative that might be worth pursuing. To that end I would agree with a commissioner that you may want to look at tabling this item and coming at it from a different direction under the framework as we stated that we're charged with, though we empathize with you, don't feel that we can support it. Thanks. Lillehaug: I strongly support proposals and improvements to existing houses. It's a good way to update and revitalize older neighborhoods in Our community. City ordinances and guidelines I think are pretty clear with non-conforming lots, but I do believe that a fair amount oflatitude should be given to encourage home improvements. Although this proposal seems to be the most logical expansion, there are other options. They're not very easy options, but there are other options. I do not support this option however because allowing an expansion on this garage, it does increase the negative impact to the adjacent property so therefore I don't support this. I do Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 encourage the applicant to explore other options which wouldn't increase the negative impacts to that adjacent property lot. And for those reasons I don't support approval of this variance. Sidney: Okay, thank you. I think my comments are not too much different from my fellow commissioners. In tenns of hardship, I do have concerns that we really don't have undue hardship demonstrated here. Usually what we talk about is something having to do with the topography or shape of the lot. Something on that order, and in this case I don't believe that is the case. I do agree with the staff s finding that approving this variance will increase the non- conformity and there do appear to be other options available for this addition. However I do recognize that one of the findings as stated in the staff report does address the fact that the home was constructed prior to the city being incorporated which is a potential mitigating factor so, I guess I do have a question for the applicant if I can go ahead with that. Would you feel comfortable coming back a second time so that if we table it then you would have that option. Sidney: Okay, and I'll see what the commissioners have to say then. Could I have a motion please. Dave Harrison: Sure. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I make a motion that we table the request for a 7 foot side yard setback variance with the intent that alternatives be considered that may lessen or not require a variance. And if they do require a variance, that it could be submitted under the same application. Sidney: Could I have a second? Claybaugh: Second. Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance #2002-4 for a 7 foot side yard setback variance for the expansion of a garage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Slagle: Can I ask staff of one thing? Can we get a, at best a diagram of what the house looks like, just for my own? Okay. Dave Harrison: Could 1 add one" Slagle: Sure. I'm sorry. Dave Harrison: Minimum side yard setback, okay what would be the minimum side yard setback we could comfortably go and get? Aanenson: That's something we'd be happy to meet with them on. Sidney: Yeah, that's something the staff... Slagle: They're the experts. Sidney: Yep. So anyway that item has been tabled. You'll have another chance to come before liS again with your proposa1. Okay, thanks. .., 'j,j