PC Staff Report 11-20-07 PC DATE:
11/20/07
1
CC DATE:
12/10/07
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE:
12/18/07
CASE #:
07-28
BY:
AA, AF, JM, ML
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for a 177 square-foot variance from the 1,000 square-foot size limitation
for an addition to a 725 square-foot detached garage.
APPLICANT
LOCATION:
951 Homestead Lane
Lot 2, Block 3, Pioneer Hills Addition
APPLICANT:
John and Cindy Hart
951 Homestead Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
Rural Residential (RR)
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential-Large Lot (2.5 acre minimum, 1/10 acre outside
MUSA)
ACREAGE:DENSITY:
2.5 acres NA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a 177 square-foot variance for a 452
SITE DATA square-foot addition to a 725 square-foot detached garage.
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 a variance. The City has a relatively high level of
discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi judicial decision.
Hart Variance Request
Planning Case 07-28
November 20, 2007
Page 2 of 7
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the 1,000 square-foot maximum square footage for
a detached accessory structure. The property currently has a 725 square-foot detached two-car
garage. The applicant is proposing a 452 square-foot addition. The proposed addition exceeds the
maximum square footage allowed by 177 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance limits detached
accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) and is
located on Lot 2, Block 3, Pioneer Hills Addition north of Pioneer Trail.
The property owners have other alternatives to expand their garage and comply with City
Ordinance. Staff is recommending denial of the variance.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
?
Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances
?
Section 20-904 (1) Accessory Structures.
BACKGROUND
The property is located on Lot 2, Block 3, Pioneer Hills Addition, which is zoned Rural
Residential (RR). The subject property has an area of 108,900 square feet (2.5 acres). It has a
Hart Variance Request
Planning Case 07-28
November 20, 2007
Page 3 of 7
lot frontage of 216 feet and an average depth of 514.7 feet. Minimum lot area in the RR district
is two and one-half acres. The site is heavily wooded and has steep sloping topography
throughout the site.
The existing home and detached garage were built in 1987 by the current homeowners. They
chose to build a detached garage at that time with intent to add on in the future. The current
detached garage is 725 square feet (22’8” x 32’). The homeowner wishes to add 452 square feet
(22’8” x 20’) for a total area of 1,177 square feet. This exceeds the zoning ordinance
requirement by 177 square feet.
The current zoning ordinance pertaining to the maximum 1,000 square-foot detached accessory
structure was adopted in May of 2007. Prior to that, City Code limited the size of detached
accessory structures for properties zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low
Density Residential (R4) Districts, but not in the Low and Medium Residential District (RLM);
nor the Agricultural Estate (A2) and Rural Residential (RR) Zoning Districts since they were at
one time related to agricultural uses. While the City’s comprehensive plan does not provide for a
purely agricultural land use, it does support the preservation of this use in greater Carver County.
As the City continues to grow, agricultural uses are being replaced by estate homes. In many
cases, contractors were purchasing the property and building accessory structures, in addition to
an attached garage, to house their business. Then, the City has to enforce the home occupation
code, which prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupations. In order to address
this issue, the code was amended to include all districts that permit single-family homes, within
the accessory structure size limitation. At that time it was presumed that legitimate agricultural
uses which came in to construct or expand agricultural buildings would be able to receive a
variance for such expansion since the size of the structure is related to its use for agricultural
purposes.
The property does not have an attached garage. The existing detached garage is used for parking
their vehicles and because it is detached, it is limited in size by ordinance. The intention of the
applicant is to increase the size of their detached garage to accommodate a woodworking hobby
as well as increase their storage space.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a 177 square-foot variance from the 1,000 square-foot maximum
detached accessory structure. If the garage were attached to the home, the size limitation would
not be an issue. There are other feasible options in which to construct an addition to
accommodate their needs/desires and be within the zoning regulations:
1.Reduce the size of the addition and maintain the 1,000 square-foot maximum accessory
structure. This would allow for a 275 square-foot (approximately 12’x 22’8”) addition.
2.Attach the garage to the existing home by locating the addition on the south side of the
garage and connect it to the north side of the home.
A typical three-car garage is 36 to 40 feet wide by 24 feet deep; the range is 864 square feet to
960 square feet, which is less than the 1,000 square-foot maximum allowed by City Code.
Hart Variance Request
Planning Case 07-28
November 20, 2007
Page 4 of 7
According to City Code the applicant has reasonable use of the property as defined by a single-
family home and a two-car garage. The homeowner could expand their existing garage by 275
square feet without the need for a variance.
Site Characteristics
The site slopes significantly down from Homestead Lane, approximately 8 to 10 feet to the
garage; creating a natural berm which screens most of the detached garage from the road.
There are not any topographical or pre-existing conditions or characteristics on the site that
would constitute undue hardship or the need for a variance. The area in which the garage and
house sit is relatively flat which would not require very much grading for the construction of the
addition.
The applicant currently has a 725 square-foot detached garage on the property. This is larger
than a typical two-car garage ranging from 480 square feet to 576 square feet. The applicant can
increase the size of their garage by up to 275 square feet and be in compliance with City Code.
Permitted Use
Reasonable use of a property within the RR district is a single-family home with a two-car
garage, which is currently constructed on the property. Accessory structures are also permitted
provided they meet the zoning requirements for that lot or development, including the 1,000
square-foot maximum. The addition could be constructed to meet this requirement. In addition,
Hart Variance Request
Planning Case 07-28
November 20, 2007
Page 5 of 7
the applicant could construct the garage on the south side of the garage and connect it to the
house, at which point the size of the structure would be limited by setbacks and maximum site
coverage.
500 Feet
The applicant argues that the hardship is not a self-created hardship as the ordinance was
changed only months ago and the garage would be consistent with the neighborhood. There are
no variance requests for properties within 500 feet of the subject property; however, there are
seven properties within the Pioneer Hills Development that have detached accessory structures in
addition to an attached garage:
Address Detached Structure (approx.) In Addition to Attached Garage
901 Homestead Lane 1,080 square feet Yes
951 Homestead Lane* 725 square feet No
1050 Homestead Lane 1,596 square feet Yes
1051 Homestead Lane 200 square feet Yes
1171 Homestead Lane 768 square feet Yes
1181 Homestead Lane 1800 square feet Yes
9650 Flintlock Trail 2,444 square feet Yes
9700 Flintlock Trail 350 square feet Yes
Square footage of detached accessory structures in the Pioneer Hills Development
The size of the detached accessory structures on properties within 500 feet of the applicant vary
in size from approximately 200 square feet to over 4,000 square feet. At the time the permits
were approved for the neighboring properties, they were in compliance with City Code. Staff
was aware that there were existing accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet when the
ordinance amendment was proposed and adopted. All of the buildings that exceed the 1,000
square-foot maximum are legal nonconforming.
Hart Variance Request
Planning Case 07-28
November 20, 2007
Page 6 of 7
The applicant’s situation is unusual due to the fact that they do not have an attached garage in
addition to the detached accessory structure. The detached accessory structure is their primary
garage in which they park their vehicles. Staff is sympathetic to the applicant’s request to add on
to their detached garage; however, this is not considered to be a hardship according to City Code.
The applicant is able to construct an addition to their garage within the guidelines of the City
Code.
Should the Planning Commission approve this variance, the following issues must be addressed:
the applicant must get a building permit prior to construction and findings of fact would need to
be created to support the approval. This could set a precedent within the A2 and RR districts to
request a variance from the recently adopted ordinance, simply because the ordinance was
changed and the property owner could no longer construct an accessory structure larger than
1,000 square feet.
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 literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a
reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, and a two-car garage are currently
constructed on the site. An expansion to the detached garage can be constructed in
compliance with city code. The structures exceeding the 1,000 square feet within 500 feet
of the subject site are legal nonconforming.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding:
The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
in the RR zoning district. City Code was changed in May of 2007 limiting the size of a
detached accessory structure in the RR district to 1,000 square feet, due to the influx of
home occupations being run out of many detached accessory structures.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding:
The purpose of the variation is not based on the desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, the applicant wishes to have a woodworking shop as
well as extra storage space.
Hart Variance Request
Planning Case 07-28
November 20, 2007
Page 7 of 7
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding:
The alleged hardship of exceeding the 1,000 square-foot maximum accessory
structure is a self-created hardship. The desire for the proposed addition can be constructed
within the guidelines of City Code. The applicant has reasonable use of the property, a
single-family house and a two-car garage.
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 may not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The parcel is 2.5
acres in size and has a natural berm along Homestead Lane, which screens the garage.
Thus, the addition will have minimal impact on the neighboring properties.
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. The addition
is within the required setbacks and impervious surface requirements of the property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Planning Commission denies Planning Case 07-28, for a 177 square-foot variance from the
maximum 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure for an addition to a detached garage on
Lot 2, Block 3, Pioneer Hills Addition, based on the findings of fact in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Reduced copy of lot survey.
4. Renderings of proposed addition.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-28 hart variance\variance report.doc
.
~
Planning Case No. Ol- d- ~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
OCT 1 9 2007
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name ihd Address: 'AI
~9J;.N p~ptf;~UJlI~/$
Owner Name and Address:
l/~H'" ~ Olhlt) Y H}4IZl
q 5' / H 0 rtt!3 S 11:::99-0 t..Af...I E:
Contact: JOHN A+/oerz.::;a,.../ Contact: i/OHJJ ~ t2. c;./NtJ'I
Phone: ~-g'2. · 4S2~ Fax: ~ 1'2 . 3~ '2. 4-52(~hone:q'S'J.4'1'u,. 300'1 Fax:
Email: lTOI"fN@ JDAC>E5/hJ../.G.DN. Email: c^'#Ate7~ II IS t. Co 0 M.
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reauired prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC)
')<. Variance (VAR)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign - $200
(City to install and remove)
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
- $50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ '2,&; O~
Subdivision*
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diaital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
,
~
,
1I/Jrt.-7 lZes/LJ'ENce cP/I~A{p~ /1PL)~
cr 5/' ,H 6 rei€:- ;; ~ tAi-.le
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ;;; ~71 ();y: ~ to 76J1dN5hf/~.' II 6 ~{PG: CJ 1..?
t 07,' 00'2 ~(;.&c;ft: OO~ ;t9?~7.' ~6~/O ,F/tJr./Gi3/l..luus
/ff/j?f2-CJx ;Z.5, .;2S-(o/OOll()
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
TOTAL ACREAGE:
WETLANDS PRESENT:
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING:
YES NO
EiJ/lA L IZ e-S/I/.t=NTl A-l-
,
- VA?U!AlL,E ~L ev~A-IL{Pe:J 6,q~A(Pe
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: 12'l?Jr//357 /5 -ro~ /J Y~/ANGE 7CJ'lYE
2CJIV/ub tJ/2,LJ/r//jNCc 7Z) /}?L..t:JJ.-1 rz:;~ A PeP/-CHtZJ
~~/!?Pc /f7;)~/71#N &r &/~"X//7A-7a-f 45'59j\ F7:.
Nt?rt=: j?~C/J5t5 e-/7A/L.. t/~7 tJr /1pt/A49Vr /VE7&r1tJ;tZ.:.s TO:
'c AI HAf2-r@J IIIS/.CON.
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 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(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.
I will keep myself informed 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
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
It) . / 8' . 0 7
Date
~,/Lt, . 11 ii C
Signature f Fee Owner
If} Jq 10 7
Date
G:\pLAN\forms\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 12/05
)A
", /; (,
I ' ,<"
..t ,f: '
~ 1'+-, ' '''-,
'v" p;-
-/" ':. ,'-
DESIGN ARCHITECTS
514 North
3rd Street
Studio 203
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55401
Telephone:
612.332.4525
Facsimile:
612.332.4526
www.jdadesign.com
~':','';;>>,//,>,,' /' /' /',/ ,-' r
October 18, 2007
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Commissioners, Council Members, et al
On behalf of Homeowners John & Cindy Hart, 951 Homestead Lane, I would like to submit
this letter along with visual documentation in support of granting a variance for this property.
When John & Cindy purchased their land in 1987 and built the existing home in 1998, there
were NO covenants in this neighborhood. In fact, this was one of many reasons why they
purchased this particular parcel. Now 20 years later the City ofChanhassen has modified it's
ordinance, for reasons that should not affect the Harts.
Having planned this project for several years, John & Cindy are now in the position to
finance it. As you can see from the enclosed, they have no intention of creating a pole barn
from which they could conduct business or agricultural use. Actually, it's just the opposite.
They will soon be empty nesters, approaching retirement and are looking for additional space
for their numerous hobbies and storage of their children's possessions while they are away at
college and/or traversing the revolving door as they transition to independence.
The hardship in this situation is related to the unique fact that the Hart's garage is detached.
Nineteen years ago they chose to build a detached garage for health reasons. If their garage
was attached, this extension would not require a variance, nor would building a second
structure the size of the proposed addition. Failing to grant this variance would be putting
them at an unfair disadvantage relative to residents with attached garages. Granting this
variance, due to the limited generality of the circumstances would not compromise the intent
behind its creation.
Additionally, as you can see from the enclosed photos, how little the impact there will be on
the surrounding area for either those using Homestead Lane, or the neighbors to either side of
the Harts. The color differences shown are only to highlight the addition for your review.
Actual colors will match the existing structure.
Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to your favorable decision.
'pal, Founder, NCARB
rchitects Inc.
Copy To: File