Loading...
8. David Bramer, 7270 Conestoga Court: Variance Appeal.CITY OF CHANHASSO STAFF REPORT BOA DATE: 3/25/96 CC DATE: 4/8/96 CASE #: 96 -1 VAR By: Rask:v �Z a 'J ,a. CL a 1 1 1 f i 1 < 0 �w 1 1 PROPOSAL: A One (1) Foot Side Yard Setback Variance Request for the construction of a garage addition. LOCATION: 7270 Conestoga Court, Lot 4, Block 2, Chanhassen Vista 3rd APPLICANT: David Bramer 7270 Conestoga Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 519 -6310 PRESENT ZONING: PUD -R, Planned Unit Development - ACREAGE: Approximately 11,930 Square Feet DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING N - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development, Residential AND LAND USE: S - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development, Residential E - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development, Residential W - RSF, Powers Blvd., Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is level at the location of the proposed addition. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential ' Bramer Variance April 8, 1996 ' Page 2 I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS UPDATE On March 25, 1996, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the variance of Mr. David Bramer. The Board voted to deny the one foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a garage addition based on the findings presented in the staff report. In addition, the Board expressed concern over granting variances in PUD Zoning Districts where the developer was granted reduced lot sizes and widths causing all lots to have similar hardships. The Board noted that variances should only be granted in situations where there is a unique hardship. Granting ' a variance in the absence of a unique hardship could set a precedent making it difficult to deny other variances in similar situations. Following the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting, staff reviewed the existing setbacks within 500 feet of the subject property to determine if other properties have similar setbacks. A review of the area shows the following setbacks: Location Existing Side Yard Setbacks 7261 Conestoga Court* 7271 Conestoga Court 7281 Conestoga Court 7291 Conestoga Court 7301 Conestoga Court* 7300 Conestoga Court 7290 Conestoga Court 7280 Conestoga Court 7260 Conestoga Court 7250 Conestoga Court 7240 Conestoga Court 740 Conestoga Trail 730 Conestoga Trail 720 Conestoga Trail 721 Conestoga Trail 10 foot setback 10 and 13 foot setbacks 15 and 15 foot setbacks 14 and 22 foot setbacks 24 foot setback 15 foot setback 12 and 12 foot setbacks 12 and 13 foot setbacks 10 and 31 foot setbacks 10 and 16 foot setbacks 15 and 20 foot setbacks 11 and 20 foot setbacks 10 and 25 foot setbacks 10 and 18 foot setbacks 10 and 10 foot setbacks Existing setbacks on the applicant's property, 7270 Conestoga Court 7270 Conestoga Court 19 and 19 foot setbacks Indicates corner lot, only one side lot line would be impacted for a garage addition Bramer Variance ' April 8, 1996 ' Page 3 Upon review of existing setbacks, several lots have adequate room for garage/home additions, ' while others are severely limited in area in which to construct additions. The varying setbacks within the neighborhood creates similar hardships on other lots. Staff maintains that the applicant ' has reasonable use of the property, and that no unique hardships exist that would warrant the granting of a variance. If Council determines that a one foot variance is appropriate in this situation, staff recommends the Council adopt the conditions of approval listed under the recommendation section of the staff report (see page 6). APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20 -506 e 4 states that the side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet in a PUD Single Family OO Zoned District. BACKGROUND In 1986, the City Council approved the Chanhassen Vista Planned Unit Development for 126 single ' family lots on 70 acres of land. The property was rezoned from R -la, Agricultural Residential to PUD -R. The lot sizes range from 11,700 to 59,500 square feet with an average lot size of 16,368 square feet. There are 68 lots under 15,000 square feet and 58 lots 15,000 square feet and over. ' Standard single family residential lot size in the City is 15,000 square feet. A PUD was approved to promote the clustering of smaller lots to preserve the existing natural features of the site. No variances for structural setbacks were granted with the PUD; therefore, the standard setbacks apply to this subdivision. ' ANALYSIS Staff is recommending denial of the variance as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. If approved, the request would create a standard that deviates from other properties within the same subdivision. Staff is unaware of any other variances granted in this subdivision for garage or home additions. A blanket variance was granted for ' certain lots along Frontier Trail for reduced front yard setbacks. However, all lots in this PUD zoning district meet minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet. ' Whereas, no single variance sets a precedent, the granting of this variance would be inconsistent with comparable properties in the area. All other properties maintain the minimum setback requirements. These lots were created, by the developer, knowing that the size of the lot would dictate the size of the home and attached garage. The current owner should have been aware of these limitations when purchasing the property. I C 7 Bramer Variance April 8, 1996 Page 4 If the Council approves the variance, staff has provided conditions of approval under the recommendation section of the report. The variance would permit a 9 foot setback along the south property line. The residence to the south is located at 12.6 feet from the property line. Therefore, a 21.6 foot separation would be maintained between structures. Because of the elevation difference between structures, the garage addition would not be overly imposing on the property to the south. The variance, if approved, should not negatively impact light or air to adjacent properties. FINnINf_C 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 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 applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and two car garage. All other homes within 500 feet meet the required side yard setback requirement. The granting of this variance would be inconsistent with comparable properties. Granting a variance for a third stall garage may cause proliferation of variances as other properties have two car garages on narrower lots. 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 request, if approved, would create a standard that deviates from the surrounding property within the same subdivision and surrounding area. Other properties in ' this PUD have reduced lot size and width. 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: Whereas, the variance may not be based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the land, the variance would be inconsistent with the neighborhood as no other variances have been granted within this subdivision. Bramer Variance April 8, 1996 Page 5 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. Finding: The hardship appears to be self - created as the existing home and garage was located 19.0 feet from the south property line. An 80 foot wide lot makes it difficult to add a third stall to a garage without encroaching into required setbacks.. These limitations were in place when the applicant purchased the property and he should have been aware of these limiting factors. 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 variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties as appropriate separations will be maintained. 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 increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding. If approved, the proposed garage would be approximately 22 feet from the neighboring home and nine feet from the lot line. The 22 foot separation should not negatively impact light and air to the neighboring property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the one (1) foot side yard variance request based on the findings presented in the staff report. More specifically, the Council finds the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and two car garage. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 3. The request, if approved, would create a standard that deviates from surrounding properties." If the City Council approves the one (1) foot variance, staff recommends that the Council adopt the following motion: L 1 Bramer Variance April 8, 1996 Page 6 "The City Council approves the one (1) foot side yard variance request based on the following findings: 1. The garage addition should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties as appropriate separations will be maintained between structures. 2. The proposed garage addition will not substantially impact light or air to adjacent properties. The following conditions shall be attached to the variance approval: 1. The applicant shall provide a survey at the time of permit approval showing the garage addition and proposed grading. 2. Existing drainage patterns shall be maintained and a swale created between the garage and property line to divert stormwater towards the street. 3. An escrow fee of $50.00 shall be paid for recording of the variance. 4. Appropriate erosion control measure shall be used during construction and until the area is re- vegetated." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Written description of variance request 3. Survey showing proposed garage addition 4. Elevations of existing home with proposed garage 5. Letter requesting appeal LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS (effective 1/1/96): The following requirements apply to all new homes in Chanhassen: All disturbed areas must have established seed or sod when the C.O. is issued. If this has not been accomplished by that time, an escrow of $500 is required. The deadline for establishing vegetation on the lot is 2 months from the time of the C.O.. For all homes built between September 30 and May 1, the deadline is July 1. Vegetation must be fully established before the escrow is released. In the case of seeded lawns, it must be able to be walked on without jeopardizing its growth. Each home must have at least one tree in the front yard. If no trees are present when the C.O. is issued, an escrow of $250 is required. Suitable trees for planting are listed on the City's Approved Tree List available from Jill Sinclair or by fax at 937 -1900, ext. 800, #706 - Subdivisions. The minimum required size for trees is 2 1/2 inches for deciduous and 6 ft. for evergreens. Trees are not allowed to be planted within the right -of -way and recommended not to be planted within the drainage and utility easements. The following requirements apply to all building permit surveys: • All significant trees (locations, size, and species if possible) must be shown on the survey. Significant trees are those 12 inches in diameter and larger. • Some lots have tree preservation easements established as part of the development. For these lots, the easements must be clearly delineated on the survey and no construction practices are allowed within those areas. Each easement has somewhat different limitations therefore it is a good idea to get a copy of the conditions from the developer or the city. • All easements and preserved trees on a site are required to have tree fencing protection. Generally, fencing is to placed at the easement limits or at the dripline of individual or groupings of trees. Exceptions are made with the approval of the city, • Failure to meet tree preservation requirements can result in a stop work order being placed on site until conditions are met. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT!. ') �� � M�� OWNER ADDRESS Oi �e S� C� ADDRESS J I l TELEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW /Easements Interim Use Permit Variance / 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 /SPR/VACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bo unds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list 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. u siz st be submitted, including an i' /z" X 11" reduced copy of tr - -- ** 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 LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE — �, f � I WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING f� y R �prc_c o� �,��c. o� \ c QQR�� 30 �•�p, PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION -Q�'e- REASON FOR THIS REQUEST �o,y- �, \e.� �� \�,av ��� � � r' �'E\c�� �) 5 �., C� �1� J -'�. � ,,,Qc�<.c � ,� \`?•'�. - 7_ This application 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 ' Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination 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. I This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom , the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further t understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of ' my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Date I Receipt No. I The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. I C CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN N� REF PLANNING DEPT THIS LETTER IS TO REQUEST VARIANCE AT LOCATION 7270 ONE, TOGA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOT 4 BLOCK 2 CHANHASSEN VISTA 3RD ADDITION THE THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 1FT BY 30 FT N� VARIANCE ALONG THE SO SIDE OF LOT TO ADD A 10FT WIDE BY 30 FT DEEP ADDITlON TO GARAGE THE GARAGE SPACE WOULB USED TO N� INCREASE STORAGE AND HOUSE TWO ANTIQUE P�RCHASES BY MY GRANDFATHER VEHICLES THAT WERE m� AND HAVE BEEN PASED DOWN TO ME THE VEHICLES ARE A 1930 FORD MODEL A 2 DOOR SEDAN AND A 1937 JOPN DEER MODL B TRACTOR THE SPACE WILL ALSO BE USED FOR FUTURE FAMILY GROWTH THE VARIANCE WI LL NOT BE USED FOR N� BUlSNESS OR ANY OTHER PROFIT !!!! ! THE STRUCTURE ALSO WILL _ NOT IMPARE VIEW OR INCREASE A FIRE OR SAFETY PROBLEM THAT I AM AWARE OF AT THIS TIME THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN - N� CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST SI�CERLY m� DAV�D D BRAMER 7270 CONESTOGA CT C�AuHASSEm MN 55317 N� p 949-05O2 B 5�Y-6310 .. 1 . 1 V I 1 Ot 6ti o a " � 4L 7 a - Clv /12 e /C LaT v�sTi� 3� YA7 /J X 4 ( T2 YI B01f ,104> ,:ZV 4� ". H,4ZZ�ZeA ,'ra sue, u■�i� Ili 1 I -7-7 - 1 • r • n// il -- —, "v I 'Fol4le NA.eL�Ba.q r � IV67`Z A) Ac.L � viMEwscus �i,FiU4T /OilfS .4P CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DR m� CHAmHASSEN MN 55317 C/O JOHN RASK ON MY PROPERTY PLANNING DEPT N� JOHm RASK l AM WRITING THIS LETTER IN REGUARDS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING ON THE 1 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON MY PROPERTY LISTED AT 7270 CONESTOGA CT CHANHASSEN VISTA 3RD LOT 4 BLOCK N� 2, I FEEL THE �OARDS REJECTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE SETBACK IS I�COR�ECI I AM NOT ASKING FOR AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT I ALSO HAVE PROP ER TIES DO NOT HAVE THE SPACE ON 0� n� T�ERE L0TS THAT I HAVE ALSO I HAVE TALKED WITH OTHER FAMILIES ON OR AROUND MY HOME AND HAVE FOUND NO RESISTANCE OR 0PPOSAL TO ME BUILD[NG THE GARAGE ADDITION WITH A 1 FOOT N� VARlANCE SO AT THIS TIME IWOUi I LIKE TO REQUEST AN APPEAL ~~ �EuR�NS WlTH THE C�A0HASSEN CITY COUNCAL THANK. YOU FOR YOUR TI�E IN THIS MATTER INCERLY DAVID D BRAMER ~� O��ER 7270 CONESTOGA C C�ANHASSEN MN 55317 — * 949-0582 m� B 519-6310 I�������� ��� �~��u~n�s�a� APR 8�D 0 � 1��� " � ',,~ C I T Y[ F ��