The URL can be used to link to this page

2 Setback/Garage/Gunther ~. - CITY OF CHANHASSEH PC DATE:.Jtme 4, 200;! June 18,2002 CC DATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 7-9-02 CASE #: 2002-5 V AR B : AI-laff . 1 ~ ~ I- Z <t U :J c... a.. <{ , ! ,j J 'j ..~ ~ ....(:( Q W ~ - C/) , '$ J ·'f 'i ,1 ;¡¡ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Two Front Yard or One Front Yard and One Side Yard Variance for the construction of a garage on a nonconforming lot of record LOCATION: 3628 Hickory Road, located at the intersection of Hickory Road and Red Cedar Point APPLICANT: Stephen Gunther 3628 Hickory Road Excelsior MN 55331 (612) 859-3729 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District - RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential ACREAGE: 25,224 square feet DENSITY : SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting two front yard variances to rebuild a nonconforming garage. The new construction is an improvement to the existing situation. . Staff is recommending approval of the request. 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. Stephen Gunther Variance Jime 4,2900 June 18, 2002 Page 2 On June 4, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this item. Staff was directed to: · Examine the oak tree on site and provide a written opinion from the Environmental Resources Specialist. · Evaluate reducing the size of the garage. · Evaluate a 5 foot side yard variance to increase the distance between the proposed structure and the trunk of the oak tree. · Address hardship. All new information will appear in bold. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. BACKGROUND The subdivision of Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta was created around 1913. It appears that none of the lots meet today's standards. The same is true for structures on those lots. SITE ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting two front yard variances for the reconstruction of a garage. The site consists of 3 lots (Lots 6, 7, and 41 of Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta) Lots 6 and 7 are contiguous, while Lot 41 is separated from the site by Hickory Road. The 3 lots are under single ownership and share a single Parcel Identification Number. An existing house with an Stephen Gunther Variance lime 4,2992 June 18, 2002 Page 3 attached two car garage, occupies Lots 6 and 7. A garage and a 100+ year old white oak occupy Lot 41. This garage has an area of 276.52 square feet. It maintains a 5 foot setback from Hickory Road and 11.5 feet from Red Cedar Point. It is located within the sight distance triangle. The ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback and prohibits structures from being located within sight distance triangles. Existing Garage Structure Existing Oak Tree The oak tree is located a distance of 10± feet from the existing garage. It has a 29 inch diameter and is in good to excellent condition with no signs of pest or disease problems. Applicant's Reouest The applicant is requesting to demolish the existing detached garage and rebuild a new one. The proposed detached garage area is 672 square feet. The ordinance allows a maximum of 1,000 square feet for a detached accessory structure. The proposed garage will maintain a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and 25 foot setback from Red Cedar Point and three feet from the trunk of the oak. The ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Staff visually surveyed the neighborhood and found a large number of the structures encroach into the front yard setback. The property located to the west of the subject site has an accessory structure that maintains a 13 foot setback. The applicant is requesting to maintain that same setback as his neighbor. Environmental Resource Specialist's Report Evaluatine the Oak Tree The tree receiving the most impact from the variance request for 3628 Hickory Lane is a white oak. It is 29 inches in diameter and in good to excellent condition with no signs of pest or disease problems. An approximate age of the tree would be 100+ years old. Construction damage to trees depends on three variables: the extent of the construction activities, the species of tree, and the plant's health. To build the garage, compaction and minor (6 -12 inches deep) excavation within 1% feet of the tree's trunk is necessary. White oaks are sensitive to both root severance and root compaction meaning that either of these activities will cause damage to the tree. The proposed garage will be built upon approximately 50% of the tree's root area. The tree's health, good to excellent, will help to alleviate the impact, but the fact that the construction will be extremely close to the trunk of the tree increases the risk of damage. The timing of the construction is also important. During the growing season when moisture and nutrient requirements for the tree are at their greatest, a major disruption of the root area will have a negative effect on the tree. Stephen Gunther Variance Jllae 4, 2992 June 18, 2002 Page 4 To protect the tree during construction, the following practices will be necessary: · Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. · To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 - 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. · Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. · The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. · No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. · The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. The tree is an excellent specimen and adds value to the property. Ifthe homeowner is committed to preserving the tree, the above-mentioned measures will help to ensure the future health and longevity of the tree. Variance Outions The Planning Commission directed staff to discuss the size of the garage with the applicant. The applicant is willing to reduce the dimensions from 24' x 28' to 24' x 24' feet. The total area of the proposed garage will be reduced to 576 square feet. With the first option, the setback from Red Cedar Point will be 28 feet, from Hickory 13 feet, 10 feet from the side property line and 3 feet from the trunk of the oak tree. If the side setback was reduced to 5 feet (option 2), the setback from Hickory will remain 13 feet, Red Cedar Point will increase to 31 feet, and the setback from the trunk of the oak will increase to 8 feet. " ~ ' 1'J " '~~6 ð t\. "" .,; .::;;::;/~"'''' S,- Option 2 Option 1 Red Cedar Point " Stephen Gunther Variance Jllne 4, 2992 June 18, 2002 Page 5 Ordinance Existine Option 1 Option 2 Accessory Structure Up to 276 S.F. 576S.F. 576 S.F. Area 1,000 S.F. Permitted Setback from 30' 5.0' 13' 13' Hickorv Road Setback from Red 30' 11.5 28' 31' Cedar Point Side Yard Setback 10' 54' 10' 5' Sight Distance Structure Within Outside Outside Triangle must be outside Hard Suñace 25% 4.8% 9.9% 9.9% Coveral!e Distance from Oak N/A 11+ 3' 8' Buildinl! Heieht 20' 12 14' 14' There are pros and cons with each option. Based upon the above table, and to minimize impact on the oak, staff recommends Option 2. It maximizes the setback from the oak tree and Red Cedar Point; however, it encroaches 5 feet into the side yard setback. One concern dealing with this variance is drainage impact on the property to the west. Staff recommends the applicant provide grading and drainage plans demonstrating no runoff impact into the neighboring property. VARIANCE FINDINGS The Planning Commission 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 these criteria. Finding: The applicant is requesting to maintain a standard that is established within this neighborhood. The site contains a garage, however, it is located within the sight distance triangle, and has front yard setbacks of 5 feet and 11.5 feet. The new structure is proposed to maintain a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and ~ a minimum of a 31 foot setback from Red Cedar Point. The side yard setback is 5 feet. These setbacks are comparable to the property to the west which maintains a 13 foot front yard setback and 4 foot side yard setback. During a visual survey of the neighborhood, staff discovered that a large number of the structures maintain a reduced setback from the property line. Stephen Gunther Variance JlIÐe 4, 2Q92 June 18, 2002 Page 6 The hardship in this case stems from physical surroundings. Lot 41 is bisected from Lots 6 and 7 by Hickory Road, a 15 foot wide right-of-way (which is equivalent to an alley). H Lot 41 were contiguons to Lots 6 and 7, the applicant would not need a variance. Also, the fact that this parcel, with a limited area of 5,801 square feet, has to maintain a 30 foot setback from public-right-of-way on two of the three sides. If a triangular double frontage lot were created today, it would have to maintain a minimum of 15,000 square feet in area. In such a case, the lot would be able to meet required setbacks. Granting this variance will allow the new structure to blend in with 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 conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to properties in the RSF zoning district. It is the configuration of the lot that makes this property unique. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed variation will improve a nonconforming setback and allow it to become more in compliance. Stephen Gunther Variance JIIRe 1, 2992 June 18, 2002 Page 7 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship stems from the shape of the lot and the fact that it is surrounded by two streets, reducing the buildable area 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: Approval of the variances will remove a structure from the sight distance triangle which will eliminate a potentially dangerous situation. 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. Based upon these findings, staff is recommending approval of this variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves variance request 2002-5 for a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 13 foot set13aek fFem Reà Cedar Reaà five foot side yard setback, for the construction of a 24' x ~' 24' garage on Lot 41 of Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta as shown on plans dated received May 7,2002 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a demolition permit. 2. The variance must be recorded with Carver County. 3. The applicant shall submit grading and drainage plans demonstrating no runoff/drainage impact on the property to the west. 4. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. 5. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 - 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 6. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 7. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 8. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 9. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods." Stephen Gunther Variance Juae 4, 2992 June 18, 2002 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Notice of Public Hearing 2. Planning Commission minutes dated June 4, 2002 3. Letter from applicant ,/ ~ '., .J :) "i (;1-'.' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPUCANT: :5-1 q~..., Ct-t"" II. er OWNER: ")f~~L_ Co. '" ./ -G.- ADDRESS: '3 ¿ 2 'I) /f/. I_d.- '7 ¿ <.'V ADDRESS: 3¿Z3 )/, ç '/''''7 ¿",'\..( C¡'c~,4. )k-, /7!/V 5,>YJI C!.<_~/,< Jµ_ /1-1/11 ~ÇJ J / , TElEPHONE (Day time) &/2 Y·n'· ') 72. OJ TELEPHONE: _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements - Interim Use Permit '-.....:K Varian~ _ 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' -X. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRlVACNARlWAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor 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. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. --Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an BW' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. - Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE.. When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. , , PROJECT NAME LOCA7ION Go/{;,?( C.:>..-¡ )/r.-.c:/,,-,__ '36 Z'J IIICJ.u7 PIO I{ Z " ¿ ( 0 0 I> ç.) Twl-//¿ 12c.'I ~ . oz J &14,,/),tr Roo, .J , ¡Ç/Úh'N m/l/ >57'7 J ¿o/ L// I? e¿ C; jv ¡;,.~/- ¿¡ 0tJ, ¡J}¡.4 t lEGAl.. DESCRIPTION 5<<:1 63 TOTAL ACREAGE WE'ItANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING YES ,/'" NO ¡¿f),d...../,.( ~), ¿....),. I PRESENTlAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED lAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST VçJ//(.....-?c" ):; r..:>.. ¿ S" ¡~'<, ~ c¡. 0./ 3.~ I This appflcation must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Depanment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A detennination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application 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 with all City requirements w~h regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certnicate of nle, Abstract of Trtle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make 1his apprlCalion and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 witl1<eep 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, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any atnhorization 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 w~hin 60 days due to public hearing Tequirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day ßxtension for development review. Development review shall be completed w~hin 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ~~ g'¡gnature of Applícant /JnJ ~ Signature of Fe'« Owner Application Received on Fee Paid S/7/Ó"C- Date '$'/7/0 ¿ Date Receipt No. The appTicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report whIch will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the appllcant's address. 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 Reconstruction of a Garage APPLICANT: Stephen Gunther LOCATION: 3628 Hickory NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Stephen Gunther, is requesting a setback variance for the reconstruction of a garage on a non-conforming lot of record zoned Residential Single Family and located at 3628 Hickory. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and :0 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 Sharmeen at 227-1134. 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. Lake Minnewasht, ,. Smooth Feed Sheets™ EILEEN F BOYER 3630 VIRGINIA AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EILEEN F BOYER 3630 VIRGINIA ~~ EXCELSIOR' MN 55331 -- " - MARK A & YOMARIE OLSEN 2961 WASHTABAYRD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SUSAN I FIEDLER 3121 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DONALD K & CHERL YN SUEKER 3111 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 C JOANNE GINTHER 3131 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS JOSEPH MERZ 3201 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN C & KAREN A MARTIN 3211 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ANDREW D & CATHERINE J SCOREY ~931 WASHTA BAY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PETER B & PAMELA J STROMMEN ,221 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 AU... JEROME E COVENY 2921 WASHTA BAY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 WAYNE A HOLZER TRUSTEE OF TRUST 2911 WASHTABAYRD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN L & LORI A WEBER 3220 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREGORY A & ROBIN M NIEMANN 3231 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN F & MARY C SCHUMACHER 2941 WASHTABAYRD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 IONA THAN D & KRISTI K HARRIS 3241 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DONALD M NICHOLSON 2901 WASHTA BAY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEW ASHT A SHORES INC C/O PATRICIA CRANE 6341 CYPRESS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HAZEL P ANDERSON 2851 WASHTABAY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE J & JEANNINE T HUBBARD 2841 WASHTA BAY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160® KRISTEN L ORTLIP 2831 WASHTA BAY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 WILLIAM 0 & STEPHANIE NAEGELE 3301 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN55331 ESTATE OF HARRYILOUlSE AHRENS' C/O JERRY TESCHENDORF 14010 CENTER DR W EXCELSIOR MN55331 PER & E LAURIE JACOBSON 2840 TANAGERS LN EXCELSIOR MN55331 HERBERT J & PATRICIA L PFEFFER 2850 TANAGERS LN EXCELSIOR MN55331 RICHARD L & ANN M ZWEIG 3601 IRONWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 ANNALEE MARIE HANSON TRUSTEE OF TRUST 6400 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR MN55331 ROBERT W & SALLY P HEBEISEN 3607 IRONWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES 0 JR & CHRIST AN GINTHER 3611 IRONWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 DAVID C & DONNA B HOELKE 3621 IRONWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Smooth Feed Sheets™ LLIAM P & MARGARET COLDWELL )1 SHORE DR :CELSIOR MN 55331 EVEN D & JUDY LEMMINGS ;0 GREENBRIAR CELSIOR MN55331 ùUIN & JANET L BEUKHOF ;¡ SHORE DR CELSIOR MN 55331 'NEW ASHT A HEIGHTS ASSN ) JOHN WARREN, TREAS o ELM TREE AVE ::ELSIOR MN 55331 UGLAS M & JODI B BERG ¡ SHORE DR :ELSIOR MN 55331 JL M & MARJORIE A MODELL 1 SHORE DR :ELSIOR MN 55331 HARD & STEPHANIE F WING I SHORE DR :ELSIOR MN 55331 N B MCKELLIP !O RADISSON RD 'ELSIOR MN 55331 YNE S HAGEN SHORE DR 'ELSIOR MN 55331 :Y A & KATHLEEN A MUSGJERD TERRACE LN ELSIOR MN 55331 ; ..... HENRY & DOLORES A ARNESON TRUSTEES OF TRUST 13791 TONBRIDGE CT EXCELSIOR MN55331 PATRICIA J HEGMAN 3311 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KAREL V & NANCI L V AN LANGEN 3411 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL A SR & TONI L HALLEEN MICHAEL IR & STEPHANIE HALLEEN 3351 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM J & EILEEN S STERNARD 6510 BA YVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BARBARA DIANE WINTHEISER 3321 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 FLORENCE E BISCHOFF TRUSTEE OF TRUST 3331 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM & JEAN M MCDANIEL 3341 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEAN G GEISLER 3680 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160@ JOHN R & KRIST! J SESTAK 3688 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN55331 JAMES L & CONNIE A VOLLING 3700 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE D & KARLA J WICKSTROM 3716 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL V & ALYSSA S NESS 3732 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARVER COUNTY CARVER COUNTY GOVT CTR.ADMIN 600 4TH ST E EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TIMOTHY M & MARY K O'CONNOR 3748 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS R & KAREN C LONDO 3764 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD EXCELSIOR· MN 55331 ,_.- EXCELSIOR MN55331 .-/ ~---/ DANA L & NANCY M JOHNSON 6541 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Smooth Feed Sheets™ DEAN A & JACQUELINE P SIMPSON 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEW ASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS C/O NANCY NARR 3950 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN55331 CHARLES F & VICKI LANDING 6601 MINNEWASHTAPKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS & MARY ALLENBURG 6621 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARVER COUNTY CARVER COUNTY GOVT CTR-ADMIN 600 4TH ST E EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ZOE K BROS 6631 MINNEWASHTAPKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMESA&JEANWAY 6641 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LEE R ANDERSON TRUSTEE OF TRUST 6651 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE & KAREN BOSSHART 6671 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT M & PATRICIA A JOSEPH 6701 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ,--"\,, CARVER COUNTY CARVER COUNTY GOVTCTR-ADMIN 6004THSTE / EXCELSIQR-- " MN 55331 LEE ANDERSON PLEASANT ACRES HOME OWNERS 6651 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN55331 JAMES & RUTH A BOYLAN 6760 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN55331 JEFFREY W & TERESA P KERTSON 6810 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR 55331 STRATFORD RIDGE HOMEOWNERS AS!\ CIO KEITH F BEDFORD 3961 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN55331 DAVID R BARBARA M HEADLA 6870 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BENNETT J & SHARON M MORGAN 940 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 NANCY H WENZEL 6900 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSE~' CIO BRUCE DEJQÞ!~ 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 E~GELSIOR MN55331 CARVER COUNTY CARVER COUNTY G<WI"'CTR-ADMIN 600 4TH ST E . /~~ EXCELSIOR/ MN 55331 Use template for 5160@ RED CEDAR COVE TOWNHOUSE POBOX 181 EXCELSIOR MN5533I STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST CIO AUDITOR - DNR WITHHELD 600 4TH ST E EXCELSIOR MN55331 JOAN E RASK 3728 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 MARGARET PARSONS & JOHN L PARSONS 3732 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL & SUSAN L MORGAN 3734 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TIMOTHY J NELSON & DANA E COOKE 3724 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 JAMES E GARFUNKEL TRUSTEE OF TRUST 3738 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 MARVIN NICHOLAS YORK 3716 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALFRED & CARLOTTA F SMITH 3714 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 GREGORY BOHRER 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 Smooth Feed Sheets™ ICHAEL DEAN ANDERSON 40 HAZELTINE BLVD (CELSIOR MN 55331 MOTHY J & DEBRA M RAIDT 15 HICKORY RD {CELSIOR MN 55331 ¡GER L & DOROTHY P DOWNING 00 JUNIPER PO BOX 651 :CELSIOR MN 55331 ~GORY BOHRER )6 HICKORY RD _..- C/':::---MN 55331 .RY PETERSON \9 20TH AVE NW _ _ _ C~~-/MN55331 'LS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS ) GRANT ST E CELSIOR MN 55331 'Y OF CHANHASSEl'{ _ ¡ BRUCE DEJONG- 10 MARKE'f BLVD PO BOX 147 C&SIOR . MN 55331 ZABETH J NOV AK o JUNIPER CELSIOR MN 55331 ÆES & PATRICIA A MOORE o HICKORY RD =ELSIOR MN 55331 ,PHEN M GUNTHER J'Y'----' _EN KATZ-GUNT-£R 8 HICI),OR1'"RD =EL-sIDR MN 55331 - GARY ALAN PETERSON & KAREN AUDREY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW . EXCELSIOR /-MÑ55331 -- ERIC L & LINDA M BAUER 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAMELA ANN SMITH 3720 RED CEDAR POINT DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATHLEEN LOCKHART 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAMELA A SMITH 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM TRUSTEES OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST 292 CHARLES DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE 3630 HICKO~------ EXCELSIPR MN 55331 .-------- LUMIR C PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160® JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN M GUNTHER & HELEN KATZ·GUNTER 3628 HICKÖRY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DK CONSULT B V , _L-AAGNIEUWKOOP EXC!ò}".~IOR----- MN 55331 JESSICA BELLE LYMAN 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR 55331 RICHARD E & NANCY J FRIEDMAN 3601 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 GREGORY G & JOAN S DATTILO 720 I JUNIPER EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREGORY G & JOAN S DATTILO 720 I JUNIPER _________- EXC'OR---- MN 55331 SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL PETER WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES F & VICKI LANDING 6601 MINNEWASHTAPKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Smooth Feed Sheets™ SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL PETER WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY ~224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN5533I LINDA L JOHNSON 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 BIRUT AM DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 DOUGLAS R & ELLEN ANDING 3631 SOUTH CEDAR ~XCELSIOR MN 55331 KATHLEEN LOCKHART ,618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EMIL & P SOUBA 14025 V ALE CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HELEN MARIE ANDING :/0 MARY JO BANGASSER '321 VIEW LN ~XCELSIOR MN 55331 mOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON ,637 SOUTH CEDAR C:XCELSIOR MN 55331 UCHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING J715 SOUTH CEDAR òXCELSIOR IVIN 55331 òVEL YN Y BEGLEY nOI SOUTH CEDAR òXCELSIOR MN 55331 ,-",""", GEORGE H & MELANIE B WERL 4849 SHERIDAN AVE S EXCELSIOR MN55331 JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN55331 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 AARON & ADRIENNE THOMPSON 3711 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARIANNE I & RICHARD BANDING TRUSTEES OF TRUST 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH W & RUTH J SMITH 3837 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN55331 RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KEVIN W & ANN J EIDE 3719 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT C & ANN OSBORNE 3815 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES P & SUSAN S ROSS 3725 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160® WILLIAM R & RENEE M HAUGH 3727 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN55331 MARK E AMBROSEN & ANN C SENN 3830 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR MN55331 KENT J & JULIE A FORSS 3850 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GUY P POCHARD & GABRIELE H WITTENBURG 3870 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 FRANCES T BORCHART 7331 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN55331 DONALD D & COLLEEN KLINKE 730 I MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN & SANDRA BAINBRIDGE 7351 MINNEW ASHT A PKY EXCELSIOR MN55331 ROGER W OAS 7301 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT A VERGIN 7311 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 L MARTIN & DONNA R JONES 7321 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Smooth Feed Sheets™ .NET M QUIST ET AL 31 DOGWOOD {CELSIOR MN 55331 CHARD C LUNDELL 41 DOGWOOD (CELSIOR MN 55331 [LMER & MARILYN LARSON 80 MINNEW ASHT A PKY ~CELSIOR MN 55331 HN & JOYCE FOLEY ) RICHARD J FOLEY )4 DUNBERRY LN :CELSIOR MN 55331 AN H & KAREN L DIRKS 11 DOGWOOD RD CELSIOR MN 55331 lTZ WILMER LARSON & lliIL YN E LARSON 10 HAWTHORNE CIR CELSIOR MN 55331 WARD L MONSER & .THRYN M HOWARD ~o HAWTHORNE CIR CELSIOR MN 55331 Y A & LINDA G MEYERS :0 HAWTHORNE CIR CELSIOR MN 55331 VID & SALLY PETERJOHN 'I HAWTHORNE CIR CELSIOR MN 55331 viES R & SHERYL A BJORK 10 LONE CEDAR CIR 2ELSI0R MN 55331 ,- GETSCH CORP CIO JOHN GETSCH 5404 GLENGARRY PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSN CIO B F SCHNEIDER, TREASURER PO BOX 103 CHASKA MN55318 TERRANCE M & PAMELA JOHNSON 3898 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA MN55318 GETSCH CORP CIO MARJORIE GETSCH 7530 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREGG R & GAY MARIE JANDRO 3896 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA MN55318 GETSCH CORP C/O MARJORIE GETSCH 7530 DOGwqOD RD . EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DOUGLAS M & GINGER B POLINSKY 3894 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA MN 55318 JOHN & VERNA PETERJOHN 3892 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA MN 553[8 CHARLES & JENNIFER NEWELL 7550 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM D & DEBRA J HUMPHRIES 3890 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA MN 55318 Use template for 5160® JAMES F & DOLORES LIPE 3880 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA MN55318 CHARLES & JENNIFER NEWELL 7550 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PETER T & DEANNA 0 BRANDT 7570 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT A BROIN & SHARON L PAULSON 3840 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA MN 55318 JEFFREY J & DEBRA J PAPKE 6180 CARDINAL DR S CHASKA MN 55318 STEPHEN B & JANE C VONBEVERN PO BOX 874 CHASKA MN 55318 ARNOLD & CAROL M HED 3860 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA MN 553 [8 SCOTT P & LAURIE A GAUER 3820 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA MN 55318 KENNETH R & MARTHA L SORENSEN 3800 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA MN55318 ABRAHAM & DOROTHY ABBARIAO 3750 ARBORETUM BlE'WBOX 26 CHASKA MN 55318 Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 5160(i) ANTONINA Q FERNANDEZ 7620 CRIMSON BAY RD CHASKA MN55318 PEMTOM COMPANY 7597 ANAGRAM DR CHASKA MN55318 ABRAHAM & DOROTHY ABBARIAO 3750 ARBORETUM B~œc-16" CHASKA ._______MN 55318 -- / DANIEL J & KAREN A HERBST 7640 CRIMSON BAY RD CHASKA MN 55318 ROBERT W & MARY M HAGEMAN & MICHAEL E & JENNIFER GRA YES 7660 CRIMSON BAY RD CHASKA MN55318 ROB M & CALI L OLSON 7700 CRIMSON BAY RD CHASKA MN 55318 RICHARD A & DARLENE J HANSON 7750 CRIMSON BAY RD CHASKA MN 55318 T'-7' .. ~ tJ ~ ~ " .. : ~ ~..:.~},. .: ~.. il ~, '~:Q\~~~ \ \ [\, e. Ii: " ~ I\. '" ..... .- ~ ~ ~." ~ '" ." ~ ¡¡ ~ Ê t·:.: " : oi "t ":I ~ '. c . . ".... "" ~ ., . II .... ", ~:,....", .I:~.t~_~ : ,~ .~, ~..; ~ ~ ~ . '<:\~ ~ ~ \: · ~ ~ ,,~ II · :t"-'Ž ~-. ':J"~"C ~"rCk ...~ '\I ~ "" ~ ~>t ~ " Po. It...... : ~ .';:-..,. " 1. ~:::: t ~ :< ; ~ '>.., ~ ~ ~ P>t ,'.:; ._ '-:> .:: " . '<: ~... . '\' ~ r . a .. ~ ~ n . .- ~ t £ . . = . , .... -,;: . ,"'. . .;¡ ~ ~ H'- ,~ }~ .. ~.1'\ \ .~ t~ ;~ .. '<: ,~":: '" 3 ,. "-.':: ~ ~ :'\; t ~ 1-. ~ E ~.; --..... ¡: .J h . ~ ~ , " I: r: l: t~ ~~ ~>-- IIN .... ~ -ð ~ Io-¡ '. \J r ~~ J" ;¡. '\,,~ ~ ~ ~'ì.; ~':' " . . . ~ > UJ iï .g ., ..o-;±: $"" ~ ~ ., '\I ~ I: ¡: , {.... ~ 'w \ II £ k . . . .. .!: I\.. ., -"1: . ). ~. J, ~\. I/-, ~ ~ Iv ~ \ ~\. \\ ~ -. .¿¿ /i: 'If ""1 "') Ub 't- "I Iq .77rl ~ '. ·'.1'1 4t ..... " 1::. T¿" I Q ... · .~U) ... . #J~/I " 't G'\ .. '" I,"z?/ .. . ~ .. .... tr,u . .... .. .... #./('/ .. ~ .. .,-6/ ..., .... ~ , ."¡J( ~ .... '. ~JI ~ ~. .... .... '<' - '" J,·.ZY . .., t IJ'.I , II .... . .. . . t t " ~ "V . ... ~ . ~ t .. " , , 'll . " . .. .. "II Ii . .... , . .. .. .. '71 : Qt) 1 . ~ ~ """1 . ~ o ~t- 'v Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3628 mCKORY ROAD. STEPHEN GUNTHER. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff. Feik: I have one. In the findings, first finding regarding undue hardship again, I read the finding 3 times and I did not see where you have addressed whether it is or is not a hardship. Al-Jaff: The structure that they have right now is minimal in size. Two car garage is a reasonable use. Feik: I understand the applicant already has a 2 car garage attached to the house. Is that not correct? Is it a tuck under? Steve Gunther: That's correct. AI-Jaff: They are, there is an existing situation. They're improving the situation, Feik: I understand that. I'm specifically speaking to the hardship issue. My understanding is, as it relates to a non-conforming use, they are not to be able to re-build, reconstruct and in continuing a non-conforming use by approval as.. .designed initially, other than it essentially continued that for the duration at least of the next structure that's going to stand. Al-Jaff: They're improving a non-conforming situation. Feik: Technically the last applicant was improving a non-conforming situation because that side lot was getting larger as it approached the street. Kate spoke very eloquently I believe at the last one regarding the non-confonnance or the hardship in the non-conformance and I don't see where this ties together. Aanenson: That's a position certainly. Feik: I also.. .and I have more items I would prefer to save for the staff, or.. .discussion, Thank you. Sidney: Okay. Questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few comments, Obviously I'm concemed about the tree. I guess you gathered that from Sharmin's comments and I want to thank you for having researched that as thoroughly as you did. I do not necessarily agree with you Bruce in terms of the hardship. I agree that it doesn't, the hardship doesn't apply, and that's the thing we need to discuss with our city attorney to get a better understanding because there are two schools of thought. One is that it needs a hardship and the other part of the balance is that it has to be a reasonable request. And it seems a little bit, what kind of land use attomey you talk to, you get slightly different interpretation where the balance is between those two things. Now I don't think we want to argue whether this request is reasonable. I think it's clearly a reasonable request. It does away with a 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4,2002 pretty run down shed and wants to put there a nice garage. However, what's significant is in terms of the non-conformity, it's still needing a variance but the variance is much less. So that the non-conformance is significantly decreased and that's significantly different from the previous case we looked at. In the previous case the non-conformance was not decreased. In this case the non-conformance is significantly decreased. I don't know what it is, about to half or what or even less. Plus in addition there's a safety concern. Currently that shed is in the view line of this crossing and by moving it away from that crossing, we're significantly improving the safety of that intersection there. So on that basis I definitely support giving this variance. I would support also giving the additional 5 feet into the side yard setback based on Sharmin' s explanation that it doesn't just increase a non-conformance, It actually also decreases a non- conformance a little bit towards Red Cedar. Peik: Uli, I apologize. If I might interrupt Madam Chair, Sacchet: Please, go ahead. Peik: I would like to carry this conversation on but I believe we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves, We haven't heard from the applicant.,. Sacchet: Oh we haven't, okay. You're right. I'm way at the end already, I'm ready to put this to bed and be done with it. I rest my case, Slagle: Madam Chair, I'd like to add is, as being between these two gentlemen, I can see both sides, I just want to let you know that. Sidney: Very good, Sacchet: You sit in the right spot. Sidney: Okay. Any other comments? Claybaugh: Yeah I have some comments, Sidney: Questions for staff! guess is where we're at. Claybaugh: Yeah like Bruce I struggle with the hardship issue. What struck me was the public safety issue on the corner there and the, for my part, Vli struck on it was addressing that and lessening the condition. The adjacent garage on the adjacent property, what is the distance off? That isn't a dimension on our plan here, On the survey. They're showing the edge of a garage right now. Steve Gunther: My neighbor's garage? Claybaugh: Yes. Steve Gunther: According to my surveyor, it's 4 feet from the property line. Claybaugh: 4 feet from the property line. Slagle: How about elevation? JO Planning COInnÚssion Meeting - June 4, 2002 Sacchet: Same almost. Steve Gunther: It's on the side, it's kind of a shallow sloping hilL Sidney: Let's wait for the applicant to come up here. Yeah, we'll have you come up. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now. Lillehaug: I do have a question in regards to the sight distance and safety of that intersection. Does the city currently have any records of any existing accidents at that intersection? I mean is there a problem? Aanenson: I don't know if we have any records on that. I can check. Lillehaug: Okay. And one more question, We discussed this earlier. Currently that tree could. the owner can just go cut it down and legally the city would have nothing, let him cut it down correct? Aanenson: Yeah. It's not a tree preservation area, Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Sidney: Any other questions of staff? Okay applicant, if you'd like to come forward please. Please state your name and address for the record again. Steve Gunther: Good evening, I'm Steve Gunther, 3628 Hickory Road in ChanhassenÆxcelsior. I think Sharrrún did a nice job describing the situation. Maybe just to expand on it just a bit if I might. What I'm proposing to do is build a 2 car garage. as you know, and I understand that I do have a 2 car garage on the existing lot across the street. I do have 2 teenage boys, 16 and 14. The 16 year old is driving to work, etc, Volunteer work, sports, etc, So with my wife working and myself working and my son needing a car. Feik: That would be a hardship in itself. Steve Gunther: Well he's actually a very good boy so I wouldn't call that a hardship by any means but we need 3 cars and to have a 2 car garage for 3 cars is just, you know it wouldn't, it doesn't work very welL The second piece is, we do live on a lake and we do own boats. I have a small Larson speed boat and a laser sailboat and kayak and we're very avid boaters. We're also avid cross country skiers, That's why we live on the lake. Bikers, etc so if I added the need to have at least 3 cars, plus storage for boats, 2 boats or you know, a kayak and plus I work on my own bicycles, I need to have a shop to do bicycle repair and maintenance and stuff. It adds up that I need some additional space from the 2 cars I've currently got so ideally I'd have an additional 2 car garage, so I could have 1 stall for the storage of my motorboat in the wintertime, and 1 stall for the storage of my sailboat and bicycles, cross country ski gear and all that stuff so that's why I'm asking for a 2 car garage. If you look at the sheet I've got on the table here, maybe you can zoom in on that a little bit but, Hickory Road is the road right here. And by the way. the photograph of the situation, This is Hickory Road coming down in this direction. This is Red Cedar Point. This is the structure that I'm going to, I would like to demolish and you can see proximity to the road in both cases plus the sight distance issue. If I were to follow the existing lot requirements, and demolish this garage here, This would be the triangle because of the odd shape or triangular shape of the lot. This would be the triangle that I'd have to build my 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 structure in and it's just, and the best I could figure, I could put like maybe a 10 by 13 structure in there and if any of you guys have driven a car recently, it's not big enough, let's put it that way. And so that's why I'm looking for variance help of some sort to allow me to build the 2 car garage I had in mind. So this is the structure as Sharmin showed you before, and what we talked about was moving it this way so it'd be further away from the tree that's sitting basically in the center of the lot so to save the tree I'd definitely be willing to move the garage structure 3, or 5 feet towards my neighbor's property. Here's their garage. There's the lot line so you can see there's 4 feet. You can't read it on here but on my survey you'll see it says 4 feet separation between the garage and the lot line there so, I think I'm improving the situation. I'm thinking I'm getting rid of a structure, while it served me well to store my sailboat in it, it's actually pretty ugly and obviously created a safety concem in this area here and I think it's reasonable use of the land to put this kind of structure here. As far as hardship, you know it's hard for me to say that you need more than a 2 car garage but these days, especially living on a lake I need to have additional storage space and I have no alternative but to try to take advantage of the land I've got across the street. And by the way as was mentioned, there are, if you go up the street, here's another view of the existing shed. This is my neighbor's shed up here. Or garage, sorry. This is the oak tree that we're talking about. And this is a closer view of my neighbor's garage so it's a 2 car garage right off ofthe property line. It's roughly 12 feet from the road, I think I requested 13 feet setback. .. .request is to be consistent with a line that they're set back. When I was measuring today, or yesterday I guess, it was I'm not sure how we actually measure the official distance from the road because apparently the road encroaches on our property a little bit so, And then here's the next structure up the street, another 2 car garage so it would be consistent with what other people have. So I guess I'm not sure if I can address the hardship issue any more than I have so. Okay? And I would respectfully request approval. Sidney: Okay, any questions for the applicant? Feik: I have one quick. Could you live with a one stall, double deep, I Y2 times deep. Maintain the 10 foot setback between yourself and the lot line to the, I guess that's west, in trying to stay away from the tree a little bit and get your shop in the back and still get your third stall. Steve Gunther: Yeah we looked at that. It's tough to tell from this photo but basically the lot, let me see if I can find another one. The lot falls off at the back so I went 28 feet back from the, you know proposed a 28 foot garage, From that point 28 feet back, it just drops down a gully or down a hill so I couldn't extend the garage or I wouldn't want to extend the garage into that area. That'd add significant expense and is not what I'd like to do so I don't think for my point of view it would serve the purpose that I need to have 2 spaces and so. Feik: Alright, thank you. Sidney: Any other questions? Claybaugh: One, Would you happen to know when the neighbor's garage was built up Hickory Road? That looks like a newer structure compared to the rest. Steve Gunther: Well the neighborhood, my house started as a cabin in 1913 so. Claybaugh: Right. That's the one that struck me when I drove up the road. That's the only one that looked like it was like post 60's. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Steve Gunther: Yeah. I'm not exactly sure when those were built but I could only hazard a guess so. Any other questions? Alright, thanks very much. Sidney: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Since I see no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, and I keep looking left. I'll look right this time. Lillehaug: I have some comments. It does increase the sight distance and it does create a safer intersection. That is, there's no doubt in my mind there. This does reduce non-confonnance of that, of the garage. It significantly reduces it. The undue hardship, it can be very subjective as far as what's an undue hardship and I'm not totally sold on an undue hardship. I have a comment on the tree also. Depending on where you put that, where you put the garage, you c!Juld increase it from 2 to maybe 8 feet away from the tree. I don't think that would save the trees. It's an oak tree and they're very susceptible to any root damage and probably by putting that garage there, it's most likely that that oak tree is going to be damaged and it may likely die. So as far as moving the garage over any further beyond that 10 feet, I wouldn't support that. I do have concems with your driveway. The garage to the west, the driveway is, it's warped and it's tough to blend in with the profile of the roadway in front of it. It's a pretty steep grade. It's doable but I'd encourage you to explore that you don't have a drainage issue and that water's running in your garage and make sure the grades are away from, and not into the garage. Other than that I generally support this because it does significantly reduce the non-confonnance. Claybaugh: My comments fall along the same line. I agree that it reduces the non-conformity of what's, the existing structure that's there, It goes a long ways towards increasing visibility and thereby the public safety, Again, difficult to get our arms around the hardship issue and I'm interested in what my fellow commissioners have to say. Sacchet: Well you heard my spiel. Two things that I'd like to add to that. What I said before. When I talked with the applicant when I went out there and the applicant actually showed me where the garage would be and so forth, and you were talking about not needing a foundation dock all around, and it appears like it's possible to make this a slab on, I think that's what it called. Claybaugh: Slab on grade. Sacchet: So that you wouldn't have to dig down and damage the root system basically, Claybaugh: No that'd be, I'm sorry. I'll let the applicant speak to it. Sacchet: Well you're the builder. I am looking to you. Claybaugh: I don't see a section cut here for it but I'm anticipating doing slab on grade with maybe thicken perimeter footings. And depending on what elevation was established for the garage, up towards the oak tree it could go anywhere towards., ,slab or be built on a sand pad and not necessarily encroach anything beyond the existing topsoil. Sacchet: So that is a viable approach? Claybaugh: It is. Again you'd want to consult the city forester and take a look at the elevation for that pad would have a bearing on that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Sacchet: Because in addition you have to be filled up a little bit so. Steve Gunther: Right, the lot actually slopes down so I would take dirt from the top and back fill it towards, on the oak side. Claybaugh: I mean it may be a condition if the forester came forth and said there's a chance to save the tree provided that the pad goes in at this elevation. Typically if you strip off the topsoil up towards the oak tree and built a pad up down where the slope falls away, where in reality it might work out that that pad needs to be at a higher elevation to accomplish that and try and preserve that oak. But that's a question for the forester. Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that? Steve Gunther: No, I thought you were going to ask me a question. That's why I stood up. Sacchet: I think he pretty much, but I'm correctly representing that you were actually thinking to have it slab on? Steve Gunther: Yeah, I'm a tree lover, I'm not looking to mow down the trees and if I can save it, I'd like to save it so. I frankly am applying for the variance first before I can go into a lot of detail discussion with builders and getting bids and stuff because if! can't get a variance I'm wasting their time and mine so, but if it's just general conversation I've had with a couple concrete guys or builders who said, suggested that, you know slab approach. Sacchet: Thank you, Well, I know where I stand. I think this is reasonable and based on the reasonableness I think this can be, this can stand. I would like to, I mean I don't think it would be right to hold the applicant hostage to that oak because we established that he could cut it down. I mean there's nothing that prevents him from cutting it down, and I think the fact that he's willing to make an effort to preserve that tree is very commendable and I would be in favor of granting that 5 foot additional variance to move the garage away from the trees and if the garage is 2 feet from the trunk, that's pretty iffy whether the tree makes it. If it's 5 or 10, between 5 and 10 feet, it's considerably bigger and then I would additionally put a condition on it that it should be a slab on another foundation built on that site towards the tree. That probably something like applicant work with staff to make that happen. So that's where I stand with this, Feik: I cannot support it as drawn, or as presented. I could understand the hardship issue to some degree. The gentleman obviously did not build the house and the garage. He has a reasonable expectation that he can replace the existing one stall garage. It's in suspect, it's not the best garage. I'll agree with the applicant wholeheartedly. I could definitely agree with going with replacing the existing garage. Something basically an even replacement of the existing structure that's going to be more in conformance with the setback, I could go along with replacing the existing garage with additional space to the rear of the garage, building into the site line triangle. I could support replacing the existing garage with an additional slab to allow for boat storage and other things. I'm having a real hard time supporting going with a full two car garage here, I just don't see a hardship. Sidney: Okay. Now for... Slagle: Since I've now heard both of my neighbors. Countries, that's right. You know I'm going to have to side with Bruce on this, and the reason is, is that we just participated in a previous case where the non-conformity to take that garage forward on the front actually 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 improved it slightly. Less than a foot, from 4 feet to 5 feet. And we asked to table it. And here we're, because of an oak, and I love trees too. We are like almost ready to jump on, ohjust give him a 5 foot setback on the side because we can protect the tree. And I think that the hardship is hard to prove and I do agree that the idea of building a similar situation, but obviously better in the conformance portion. Extending the depth, even if that includes bringing some fill in. And so forth. I think that's a fairer approach in this situation than just recommending approvaL.. Ithink it's improving the site but I don't know where to balance the hardship and the improvement so right now I would be open to supporting some changes to this proposal, but I would not approve it as it is. Sacchet: Are you saying tabling? Slagle: Tabling if they choose, sure. I'd be open to a table. Sidney: That seems to be the way we're going. Slagle: And I want to make sure that my fellow commissioners understand that I'm open to tabling, and realizing that there are time lines to things but if an applicant really wants to work with the city, they will be open to tabling. And if they choose not to, they choose not to. Sidney: Okay. Yes please. Claybaugh: I'd like to address some of Rich's comments. Granted the petitioner that came before Mr, Gunther here had a non-conformance, as this is a non-confonnance. They were adding, not detracting at all from the non-conformity, Everything was an additional non- conformance that they were proposing. This here the applicant is not adding to it. He's removing it. It's going backwards. It's mitigating the problem. It's not eliminating it but it is going a long ways towards mitigating that. That being said, I agree with Commissioner Slagle with respect to looking at a second variance for the tree for the 10 yard, or the 10 foot side yard setback, I would much rather see some compromise on the applicant's part with respect to the size of the overall garage. I think with respect to the tree, the piece that's missing would be some feedback from the city forester telling us what would be a probable distance that would have a success rate and kind of working backwards from that. Seeing what was left. Sacchet: If I may add to that. From a forester's viewpoint the rule is you don't build in the drip line of the tree. Now if we do that we probably couldn't even build on the neighboring yard much because of the big tree. Lillehaug: One quick comment. Sidney: Sure. Lillehaug: I agree with fellow Commissioner Claybaugh, but I do want to make one more comment. If we decrease the 5 yard setback, that does not reduce the non-conformance and that's why I wouldn't support that because I do support maintaining the 10 foot side setback on that side but if we reduce it to 5 foot, then it doesn't reduce the non-conformance and I wouldn't support that. Sacchet: Well there are really several items here. I mean we're reducing the non-conformance from 2 sides but not from the third side, so yeah we are cutting into the amount of decrease of 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 non-conformance, that's for sure. I'm willing to do that for the tree because I love the tree but I understand your position. Lillehaug: Okay. Feik: Madam Chair, if I might respond in general. I understand where the other commissioners are coming from but that doesn't answer the question regarding hardship. And we have a standard that we've had to uphold in the past regarding what is and isn't a reasonable hardship and I certainly agree that the applicant should be able to replace his garage. And to allow, to reconstruct and further be in violation of the variance setbacks in the process of building something larger when there are altematives, I don't see how we can support that. Go ahead, I'm sorry. Sidney: Okay, I guess it's my turn finally. Actually I was going to jump in earlier. A lot of good discussion here and I'd first like to address the concern about hardship and I believe there is hardship here because if we were looking at the applicant and if they were going to completely destroy the existing garage and rebuild, we're seeing the existing buildable area as a triangle which is minimal which is not going to be usable as a garage. So I believe there is hardship in terms of meeting all the setbacks. It also potentially with topography we're talking about for other options, The overall thing that I see as a concern with this application is that we do have a problem with the sight distance triangle on that comer, and I think staff would be advised to maybe put in more discussion about that. I don't know what that might be but to emphasize the public safety aspect of what we're trying to do here, or the applicant is trying to do. And indeed by changing the location on the lot of this garage, I think this doesn't sound too great, we are lessening the non-conformity, and I believe that's, not a compelling reason but close to compelling reason to look at this application and to consider granting it. I do have some feelings that we're trying to do too much engineering on the commission tonight, and I would feel like I'd like to see this come back again so I would be actually in favor of tabling it so that we could have staff s comments about, especially the side setback issue. If we want to approach it to that any further. And also if there are any drainage issues or, and I think just more of a discussion about the engineering of how the garage could be built and save that tree because I do think the tree is, and I love oaks. Sacchet: It's a beauty. Sidney: You know is an important aspect for this whole thing so we might as well try to do it right. I guess that's my comment. Any further comments? I think we exhausted them all. I'd like a motion please. Feik: Do you want to ask the applicant whether you're willing to have this tabled or would you like us to vote on it tonight? Steve Gunther: I'm not really sure of the process here so I'm not sure if it's majority rules or if there's a vote. I'm not anxious to table it frankly because, I mean I will do that if that's the way we go here but I'd prefer to just try to get to a decision in a sense and know where I stand. I'm not sure if we, if I object to tabling, do I then take it to the City Council or something? That's the next step or what, but the way I see it, I mean the lot as I've got it today, working within the requirements of the city, it allows me to build nothing on this lot. It's totally useless to me. And so there's a real hardship in there from my point of view. Yeah I can, you know I could, if I had my preference, you know I would like to just take an unsafe situation with this ugly shed built in whatever. 1902, sitting on the comer of an intersection, coming down a hilL You know in the 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 winter time people are sliding down that hill all the time because it's a steep hill. You know down Hickory Road here. I'm looking to improve the safety of the situation. I'm looking to improve the visual beauty of the neighborhood by taking down a pretty old, dilapidated shed and replace it with something attractive. So I mean from my point of view I'm making things better. I'm willing to work with you on the oak tree. I'm not really sure how to prove hardship other than show you the lot as drawn today, it just doesn't allow me to do anything with the lot. With existing lines. So I would be open to shrinking the depth of the garage so I reduce one variance in the back here, because I would prefer to leave it. It doesn't really matter, but the preference would to leave it 10 feet but I would work with you on that but I'm not sure how to prove hardship and that's where we're stuck on. So I would need some guidance from somebody as to what entails hardship. I mean maybe staff or whatever but, are there any comments you can make for me tonight so. Sidney: Yeah, I think what I said and maybe staff can comment about that is, if you were to you know, remove the existing garage and then build a new garage, or structure, you don't really have a buildable area there, which is a hardship so in some respects you need to have some variances. How many would be in existence I can't. Steve Gunther: There's no doubt to me the hardship as I described it is, I can't build on the lot with the existing setback requirements. Claybaugh: I think where some of us are getting stuck, we're a long ways between it being a unbuildable site to a 24 by 28 garage pad. Then when you throw in the oak tree in there and that becomes a concern, then we're looking at focusing on trying to save the oak. So we're trying to fit in that 24 by 28 garage, save the oak tree and trying to minimize the non-conformity of it, and I think bottom line the reason that we're talking about trying to table it is that something in there needs to give, There needs to be some compromise in there somewhere. Steve Gunther: I understand. Where would we compromise? Claybaugh: Well like I said, starting from having a one car garage. I understand that you can't build anything of any substance on that lot the way it is without getting some degree of variance. At least from my perspective, I look at it in tenns of degrees. It's a long ways from having something from a single stall to 24 by 28 foot pad, That's all I'm saying is, and that's why I'm looking for the compromise with respect, from my perspective, if we come up with something size wise that would on some level give some relief to the oak tree and give it, and I understand the forester, their first comment is going to be the drip line, but hopefully they've got a follow-up comment that's a little more substantive, Steve Gunther: I think the oak tree's going to die. IfI move it 5 feet further, from what I understand the folks... Claybaugh: And maybe that's the decision that gets it off the bubble tonight is you say that, you know if it's the oak tree or if it's this, then I stand behind taking the oak tree down because they feel it's going to die and this is.,. Steve Gunther: I mean I'm not a forester but I've got, from my perspective from the people I've talked to, it's an opinion. And it isn't until we break ground and wait a year or two that we know whether the oak tree's going to survive or not. Claybaugh: Right. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Steve Gunther: So I would say worst case, let's assume the oak tree dies, Then how would you approach it? Claybaugh: Well then we certainly will want to do the 5 foot yard setback. The tree's going to die. Steve Gunther: So I'd be willing to shrink the size of the garage, I mean to 24 by 24. Claybaugh: I think in some terms of granting the variance with that oak tree being there and being as substantial as it is, that some of the commissioners are looking for something in return. Now if we can grant the variance, would that be accurate on some level? That yeah, we're willing to look at this. We're willing to grant this. We realize that it's mitigating a public safety issue, It has merit. We've gone through all that. We're in agreement on most of that. It's just a function of assigning different weights to different aspects of it. And the public safety aspect weighs heavy. The oak tree weighs heavier with some rather than others, but it still comes down that it's a 24 by 28 pad. That's a big pad, I think in terms of reducing that pad size might get it to a vote. Steve Gunther: Yeah, I'd be willing to reduce the depth of the pad. Was that sufficient, instead of 24. I'd still keep it 24 feet wide but make it 24 feet deep rather than 28. I mean I lose part of my work bench area but that takes you know. Sidney: It sounds like we may be moving toward tabling this tonight. And I guess that would be my suggestion that we do that because we could vote on what's before us and potentially could be denied. Steve Gunther: Right, I understand but my next approach would be City Council either way so. Sidney: City Council, that's your option and I guess my suggestion would be to table it because like I said, I feel like we're doing a lot of engineering up here and maybe there's a solution with staff you can come up with that will satisfy us, Steve Gunther: I was looking for some guidance on what are you looking for? If you're looking for reducing depth, I can do that tonight. If you're looking for reducing width, I have to go back and reassess that. Sidney: I think what I heard and maybe just a few comments. I am concerned about that side yard setback. I don't like to encroach into that because it is a public safety issue in itself. You know not decrease those setbacks or vehicles or whatever might need to get back there. And then we talked about the oak tree as maybe being another consideration, which is weighed heavily. And then decreasing, actually decreasing the sight line, sight distance triangle problem. , ,put there first. So in my book that side setback and the oak consideration. Sacchet: Yeah, I really don't think we have all the information to make a clear decision tonight. And I totally agree with Commissioner Sidney that we're kind of fishing in areas where we're not expert. I think that needs to be a little more worked on in all these areas. Steve Gunther: Okay, Sidney: Any other comments? How about a motion? 18 Planning Comnñssion Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagle: I'll make a motion. I'd move that the Planning Comnñssion table the variance request for 2002-5, 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane as it reads on our page 5, and I would also ask that as a part of that tabling that we request a written opinion from the City Forester as to that oak tree. Sidney: Okay, is there? Claybaugh: Second it. Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance #2002-5, a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 13 foot setback from Red Cedar Road, and direct staff to obtain a written opinion from the City Forester regarding the oak tree. AIl voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sidney: It's 5-1 in favor oftabling. LilIehaug: And I'd like to make a comment as to why. Sidney: Yes please. LilIehaug: I support the current variance here and I would approve it as it lies. Sidney: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 27.405 SOUARE FEET INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES. ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. LOCATED AT 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. CARL MCNUTT. Public Present: Name Address Carl McNutt Brian Grundhofer Al Klingelhutz Carrie Bickford 185 Pleasant View Road 195 Pleasant View Road 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 9184 West 126th Street, Savage, Sharmin AI-JafT presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Okay we're going to have staff questions first and then we'll get to the applicant. Okay, questions of staff. Slagle: Ijust have one, Sidney: Okay. Slagle: Has the applicant given you a reason Shannin, as to why they have not provided you with that complete subdivision plans? I'll also ask the applicant but I'm curious as to your thoughts. 19 Request for Variance at 3628 Hickory Lane, Excelsior MN Requested by Stephen M. Gunther, owner VARIANCE REOUEST DESCRIPTION I request a variance to the requirement that structures be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the road on one side of the property. I would like to locate a garage 13 feet from the road on Hickory Road (in line with neighbor's garage) and 25 feet from Red Cedar Point. PURPOSE AND INTENT I would like to improve the visual beauty of the property by removing the dilapidated garage on the lot that violates the current restrictions, Then, I'd like to build a new garage, styled and located in a fashion to be consistent with what other homeowners on Hickory Lane have done. See attached drawing. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VARIANCE Because of the triangular shape of this plot of land, adherence to the existing set back requirements severely restricts the possible uses of the land. Literally following the existing setback restrictions, the footprint of any structure placed on the property could only be lOx 13 feet. This is an undue hardship and prevents reasonable use of the land. JUSTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 20-58 Please note that this variance." I, Allows us to significantly improve the visual beauty of the property 2, will blend with pre-existing standards on the street 3. is not applicable to other homeowners because of the unique shape ofthis'specific lot 4. is being requested to make reasonable use of the property and not generate income. Adding the garage may increase the value of the property but that is not our purpose 5, is not addressing a self-created hardship but a pre-existing one 6, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood 7, will not impair an adequate supply of light and air, will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The names and addresses of the owners of properties that are within 500 feet of this property are attached: ~ ~Stephen M Gunther ./ .' ~ ,~ . ;~ .... , ~ ,~ ! "- ,\" 3 ,,) ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ § ~ ....... , ~ ~ ~t 1~ ~~ !;~ ~~ ~ " . t ~ ~ rs ,~ ~ ...) ~ n ~ N ~ -;; ~ ~ ~ \ ;;; ~ :r ª ¡¡ :A ::) ~ 'I: \I S ~ V\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ð :;¡ -;; ~ N § '¡¡ ,¡; ¡¡: 8 -" ", 00 ð :A 1 , ~ .~ " "" ,I. .~ ,') i~ "-. , . ~ "i ~ "'ù ~ ( ~ ~ J v $ " ~ \ , ., -.4 "1 ~"I " ,~~ !,~ .~ ~ '" . ~ 00 î ~ ~ ? o R, ~ 00 8 ~ ~ ~. '" ª 8 :;: N ~ B Ii: i ¡ g i v " ~ ~ ~ 1~ " jlll\ 0' ~ ü ¡¡: ~ ~ J ~ ~ Kl ~ \. ~ ~ ""'C ..... 1 '^ ! ~ ~ N )1 ð 0' S c ~ ß'?f: f" ,/ , ~ fr, N §: § " ~ ~ õ c :;~ N .~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ = :3 :¡ '" t,,· Of " -°0 ~...,., , '- '~" ;./~" ,'-:0 " " \S\ '~,-~ '.', /foo)...,. ,.,.. "'- °.....6 ( "" ',- " '-, . '-, '" ",>, "'- > '....". '-......,.... Y ~ ~ ~ ¿ /~ ~O /, -~ __,~.1So ' '-, '~" 0", ; ~." ''v" / ' ''-s> , ~Ç:, ,~~ ~. ,~~ " ç¡ ,\<õ ,~~ . ~'ö .\'ö \)\) / '? ,!>.<õ ~. / <? ç¡ / ~ A.~/ ,/~~ ," ( Q~ . (j) ,y;o f , c,~ ': / ¡,... ....';; ~ :" ~/" ",0, ~/~I{ / " / I to . \ > // \, "'i ¿ II.? / I lCo ~~ .\0 ..q. ~, C\1.f-< ~ Q Q.. ~~ ~~~ -'0 - ~~ ~ \, C\}~ .....ct¡ ~ C/) a::: '. :,: , ~ c, . !,.' , O£ n fo I , 1, ~ " [ f_~ . ~ -0> I', ~ ',- CO .~ 00. "..90 0 '6'<f' O/' O....~ <5' ) c::;::, "If h a ~ - .. " 1'~ / / / / / / / / / / \ ~ ,,} ... \"" .... ~ ~) ~ --- I I I I I I ! i I I , i I I I '- "--ç <,..- r - - ~ ~/ ./': ,~ ~ ; . , 'b ~tI '1 t , " i .\b~ ( -..lð) "'~ 4:~ Y} ~ Q.. - '0 ~~~ ,,- lci~ ~ I C\2. t,j ""'ig; I ~~ 0:: , I " I ~ , I 1 , , ~... " o£ t .~ __ '-1/ , .~ :~ ~O $, \ '~ ·3 ,. cP " " ~ l ~ ,0) ~~ ... ,~ . ~ '" ,} ",-.' l ' "", \» ...... :'i ~ ~ (t¡ It "ì ~ :-. ., "" , ..... , " ~ ~ ~ ..... ..Q .... ") , ~ 0 ""Q o. q~Oo c;:.-": /' ~ .s> ç::, ~ &.. c::. ...;¡ / / / / / / / / / / -i..., ~ ~ ) /::¿, -- " / I ¡ I ! ! i I I Of - I I L "--ç "- r -./ -::: ~ --' ---:/ ""\ . "... . , ~ . \~ ~ "- t ~ l' \5~ f "{ 00 "",t\) ~~ "~"" -0~......",<$' ~"?'~ ~" -'\., '" /~"'1 '."" ()"'<5 " ',,~ . " '....- /"', " I' ... ''-... " ...., " ~. .. .... !.. " "\ti ~ '" {~ ~ '" v ~ ~ ~' ';¡. ~ '13, ,~ ....:1 ... , VI ~ ~ " II , () . ~ ! ~J~"~ '-, ~ f ~ oJ, ~ .----'> ) ~ ..--- I I I I ¡ <.. ----< '- r ----- ----:: -) :;/ ~ ,/ , , t."-. ...... .~~ ~ ~ t!i \.:J~ r i~ ~~ < \1':)0 ~>q .~ -.:<~, <:\1,fo< Of - 'Q- " ~ ëS Q.. C\l~ ~ C\l1ß ~ lci~ ,..; C\l &., ....., ~ctI .. tJ) ~. .. !~ c::~ , i! .;;, ~. 00. . .Ç'o 0 . 6'<f' O.? O.....,ð .s> " , ~' , ¡~ \lò. Ii "- \t> \)<.~ <::::> "'i< 1 e... ~ S ~ . ~ ~ O£ / / / / / / / / / / . ,,",VV,,",'w,,",/1' -'f"'"l" v....v....,-...... ...-t'...... ............".~'1 &6Rd :txau ~u!Jd o~-aJa.. ~~ ~=~~ --(£l1li)"", ~~(sosJ uB[saa iIIllOJIlI1OØJJ Jaa~6ua 1~9jOJd e.(q eaJe JOG< SOJ pa¡enlet.a sUed ~ æ.eL¡ O pa6emooua aJe noA ·sueld asal1 uo slfO!SSP.Uo JO gJOJJa q <KIp sa6Jetp JO s¡so:¡Aue JOJ~J)OO stlS3MllION pe:) l:JOì H1lm 3~V''D <!!IV':=> 001 ,Bl >< ,vl 9"" I 133H9 uø-, II II€/I NO/l'\7'1\3l3 ~'\7'3~ ,,021-,[ = "t-/I N011\11\3l3 INO~;: DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD r"-.., J...I~f" 'Ii 'Sf,í. JI. ,., I'''''''''''' I". L.I. t"" ~~!n" I tf ¢*, I·~ ,~<:,;'oJA >;;NIOIS d71 \ 1'0' lNOZIOIOH "-..j:!l :!3N!:10:> '3X I ~:! NOlll'30dWO:>