Loading...
1 Variance 7270 Conestoga CourtCITY OF BOA DATE: 3/25/96 CC DATE:' CASE#: 96-1 VAR By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: A One (1) Foot Side Yard Setback Variance Request For The Construction Of A Garage Addition. 7270 Conestoga Court, Lot 4, Block 2, Chonhassen Vista 3rd David Bramer 72770 Conestoga Court Chenhessen, MN 55317 (612) 519-6310 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 2000 LAND USE PLAN: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential Approximately 11,930 Square Feet N/A N - PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential S - PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential E - PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential W- RSF, Powers Blvd., Residential Single Family Available to the Site . . .The site is level at the location of the proposed addition. · Low Density Residential Bramer Variance March 25, 1996 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-506 (e)(4) states that the side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet in a PUD Single Family 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. If the Board 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. ~ Bramer Variance March 25, 1996 Page 3 FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: ae 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. be 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. 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. de The alleged difficulty or hardship is nota 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. A 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. Bramer Variance March 25, 1996 Page 4 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. 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 Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the one (1) foot side yard variance request based on the findings presented in the staff report. More specifically, the Board 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 Board approves the one (1) foot variance, staff recommends that the Board adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the one (1) foot side yard variance request based on the following findings: , 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 'adjacentProperties. Bramer Variance March 25, 1996 Page 5 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 consm~ction 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 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: ~%~--- ~~~L~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit 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 Subdivision* Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CU P/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property ownem 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. -: ..... -~-~:iiTI-IrqF~;aL.~L.~-, ' .'_..,-~.~r.,.~,.-,-..~st be submitted, Including an 8¥2" 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 TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES ~:~ NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING ~ ~ '~1~...~-,<..~.. PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION~,-~-~ REASON FOR THIS REQUEST "~ c) 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. 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. 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 Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the rneeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. ~ C:ITY OF CHANHASSEN 6~0 COULTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TFI WHOM IT MAY CONCERN REF' PLANNING DEF'T THIS LETTER IS TO REQUEST VARIANCE AT LOCATION 7270 CONESTOGA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LO]' 4 BLOCK 2 CHANHASSEN VISTA 3RD ADDITION THE THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 1FT BY 30 FT VARIANCE ALONG THE SO SIDE OF' LOT TO ADD A lOFT WIDE BY 30 F'T DEEP ADO IT ION TO GARAGE THE GARAGE SPACE WOULB USED TO INCREASE STORAGE AND HOUSE TWO ANTIQUE VEHICLES THAT WERE PURCHASES BY MY GRAND~'ATHER AND HAVE BEEN PASED DOWN TO ME THE VEHICLES ARE A 1930 FORD MODEL A 2 DOOR SEDAN AND A 1937 dOHN DEER MODL B TRACTOR THE SPACE WILL ALSO BE USED FOR FUTURE FAMILY GROWTH THE VARIANCE WILL. NOT BE USED FOR BUISNESS OR ANY OTHER PROFIT !!! ! ! THE STRUCTURE ALSO WILL NOT IMF'ARE VIEW OR I'NCREASE A FIRE OR SAFETY PROBLEM THAT I AM AWARE OF' AT THIS TIME THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN F:ONS I [3ER I NC~ ]"H I S REQUEST S I NC:ERLY NOU I ~ION~lo - 0 suZ..I glVOS t~"~u~' 'ON 'g 'd ~)/,~'z'O N 301OANI t I~G0b~09g q.~oH mmaay p~/,. Tog& 'ONI 'ANVdl'dO0 SA-=IAIdn.S '1'01 IJ}IJ.J~ (11{£ VJ~IA '-/..'SL~ tmTl~,~l~ ~sodo~ ~:lougo 0 '0 0 0 XI'UO-m~l:l.~J~'~xJi .zod !11 1 ~t ~- ~.1~ /t-/' ~L g VA77o A/ · '2. .'.,~'. J ?