Loading...
2 Variance 220 Frontier CourtCITY OF STAFF REPORT BOA DATE: March 25, 1996 CC DATE: CASE #: 91-19 VAR By: Rask:v Z PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Variance Request for a 25 foot rear yard setback variance and a 10 foot f~ont yard setback for the construction of an 8 x 26 foot home addition. 220 Frontier Court, Southwest comer of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision #2 Peter Dahl 220 Frontier Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 16,796 Square Feet DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: N- RSF, Single Family S - RSF, Single Family E - RD, Lotus Lake W- RSF, single Family Available'to the site." PHYSICAL CHARACTER: · .. The property is a riparian lot located on Lotus Lake. The lot is wooded and contains an existing single family residence. · LOW DenSity Residential Dahl Variance March 25, 1996 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS .. Section 20-615(6) states that, "The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or flag or neck lots, are as follows: be For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shah be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remolning exposures trea~ as side lot lines..." For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. For side yards, ten (10) feet. BACKGROUND The subject property (Lot 3) is located in Auditor's Subdivision #2 which was creamed in 1939. In 1942, prior to the adoption of the City's zoning ordinance, Lot 3 was split into two parcels. Each parcel has a depth of 323 feet and width of 52 feet, and are approximately 16,796 square feet in size. The parcels are existing nonconforming lots of record. The subject property does not have. direct access to a public street. Access is provided by a driveway easement that runs across an' outlot (Outlot A). On December 9, 1991, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a variance request to locate a garage addition on this parcel. Design problems created major delays in the project causing the variance to expire. On October 11, 1993, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals again approved of a similar variance request for an 18 foot front yard, 20 foot rear yard, and a 15 foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a garage. The board concluded that the existing one car garage was substandard and was a hardship as defined by city ordinance. The Board approved the variance subject to the following conditions. 1. As shown in Alternative #3 developed by staff with a building height not to exceed 25 feet. 2. No additional construction is permitted without a variance. In 1991, 'when the original application was Submitted for the garage addition, the applicant ~submitted plans to staff showing the garage along' with a second floor addition to the existing home. At this time, the applicant indicated that the second floor addition would be added at a later date.: Staff informed the applicant that, if approved, the second floor addition would have to be started within a year or the variance would be considered VOid. The applicant, therefore, decided to apply for two separate variances, and is now applying for the variance to construct the second story. A Dahl Variance March 25, 1996 Page 3 SeCond floor was constructed above the garage addition to blend with the future second floor addition above the home. Following the definitions and standards provided in the ordinance, staff determined that the south property line would be considered the front lot line, and the north property line would be considered the rear lot line. This interpretation was used in 1993 when the variance was granted for the garage. Staff maintains that this is the correct description of front and rear yards and have published the public hearing notices accordingly. However, the location of existing structures and lots within the neighborhood would lead one to believe otherwise. In reality, the north and south 'lot lines would be considered side lot lines, with the remaininE two the front and back. Regardless of how the lot lines are described, variances would still be needed. ANALYSIS The existing home is a slab coveted building with a flat roof and is approximately 1,300 sq. feet in size. An attached garage has been added to the east side of the home. Because of the size and shape of the lot, any addition to the structure would require a variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to add an 8 x 26 foot addition on to the west end of the existing structure. As shown on the floor plan, the addition would allow the applicant to add a stairwell and slightly expand one of the bedrooms on the ground floor. The existing structure is located at 5.5 feet from the north property line. Adding the proposed addition would decrease the existing setback by half a foot leaving a 5 foot setback. In review of other properties in the surrounding 'area, it appears that a majority of the homes meet required setback requirements. However, the subject property differs greatly from other lots and residences in the neighborhood because of its size and location. The character of the neighborhood consists of two story dwellings oriented towards the lake. A variance would allow the applicant to improve the structure and make it more compatible with the existing standards of the neighborhood. Staff is unaware of any variances granted within 500 feet of the subject property. However, in 1995 there was a variance granted approximately 700 feet to the north for the consmmfion of a home addition. The variance was at 7343 Frontier Trail and involved a lake setback. The addition did not encroach any further into the required setbacks, nor did it increase the non-conformity of the building. The Board, therefore, approved the variance. .. · . . The applicant and staff examined other alternatives for eXPanding the existing smacture by adding additional space. A second floor addition could be added without a variance, if the size of the footprint did not increase. Because of the small size and the' layout of the interior of the home, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to add a staircase Within the current footprint. An addition could be added on the south side of the home which would still require a variance, and the removal of the large Maple tree. (It should be noted that this tree may have to be removed to accommodate · . Dahl Variance March 25, 1996 Page 4 a second floor regardless of the location of the addition.) An addition to the south side of the structure would also be disruptive to the existing layout of the home. The applicant has demonstrated hardships in the size and shape of the lot which prevents a reasonable sized home to be located on the parcel without variances. The approximately 1,300 square foot home is not a reasonable use of the property compared to the majority of properties within 500 feet, which have different lot sizes and configurations, and/or contain much larger two story dwellings. A hardship also exists in the location of the existing structure which is 5.5 feet 'from the property line. Any attempt to construct a reasonable size home on this parcel would require variances. Accordingly, staff is recommending appwval of the variance subject to the conditions and findings outlined in the staff report. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: 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 pwperty 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'size and shape of the lot prevents a reasonable sized home to be located on the parcel without variances. The approximately 1,300 square foot home is not a reasonable use of the property compared to the majority of properties within 500 feet, which have different lot configurations and/or contain much larger two story dwellings. A hardship also exists in the location of the existing structure which is 5.5 feet from the property line. The one story slab constructed home is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The variance would allow the applicant to improve the structure and make it more compatible with the Pre-existing standards of the neighborhood. The conditions upon Which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: Other properties contain 'existing homes located in the center of the lots. The surrounding homes are newer and are much larger in size. Therefore, other pwperties do not have the same hardships as exist on this parcel. -.- "-",-.- Dahl Variance March 25, 1996 Page 5 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 variance does not appear to be based upon a aes~ to increase the va~ue of the parcel, but rather a desire to enjoy a reasonable use of the property by enlarging the home with minimal additional encroachment on property lines and impact to surrounding property and the environment. de The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is not self-created as the lot and home pre-date zoning ordinance requirements. The applicant is attempting to utilize the parcel for the single family use it was approved for. ee The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The proposed addition is located approximately 45 feet from the rear of the residence to the north. Adding a second story addition and improving the overall design of the home should benefit the neighborhood in terms of enhancing the aesthetic environment of the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public slxeets or increases 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 properties as the proposed addition will be located approximately 45 feet from the residence to the north. The addition will not encroach on the lake setback or any public right-of-way. Therefore, the addition should not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Further, property values should not be impaired or diminish property values as the variance would allow the apPlicant to make substantial improvement to the ~. · m COMME ATIO . · . Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: .. "The Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the 25 foot variance to allow the construction of an 8 x 26 foot home addition based on the findings presented in the staff report and with the following conditions: · . · Dahl Variance March 25, 1996 Page 6 1. The applicant shall submit a site survey along with detailed construction plans at the time of building permit application. 2. Erosion control shall be installed and maintained during construction and until vegetation is reestablished. 3. An escrow fee of $50 shall be submitted for recording of the variance." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application dated February 26, 1996 2. Letter from the applicant dated March 4, 1996 3. Layout of interior of the home 4. Survey of subject property CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 RECBYED WI R 0 App LICANT: "~'~7=.~?_. ~'~~ L.__ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Daytime) ~ ?g 7'- ~c~/~ OWNER: -'~ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit ~'/~'~.yarianca Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment J Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Subdivision* Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundarlee 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 8W' 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. J PROJECT NAME · ~%LO~ATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE. WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES NO This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly pdnted and must be accompanied by ail 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 submittai. A written ~,~Doti~ of application deficiencies shail 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 Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of T'Rle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has aiso 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 knowiedge. 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 additionai review s~eign._.'-~ "--'~ ~ - - ~'~xtenslons are approved by tl~. applicant. Signature f~ee uwner Application Received on ~ J I'~ -- o~ ~ Fee Paid Receipt No. ~'C~ 3 ~ O ~l~.e applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. ~ ,f not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Cha~hassen, MN 55317 March 4, 1996 RE: Variance. To whom it may concern, I am requesting a variance so that a small portion of my existing homes footprint can be extended an additional six inches towards my northern most lot line. My homes footprint is currently 5 feet 6 inches from the lot line. I am requesting a variance to build to five feet of the property line. My current home is set at a slight angle on a 52.5 foot wide nonconforming lake lot. Please note, with current setbacks that this lot would require a variance to do any building project. My Goal is to add eight feet to the lake side of my home per enclosed plan. In doing this, being that my home is set on the lot at a slight angle, the very corner of the foot print would extend to approximately five feet from the property line in question. This will enable me to add a second story to my home, maintaining a simple roof line and structure. It will also enable me to best utilize the current structure. Adding eight feet to the structure will mean that I need a variance to five feet of the property line. Please note that my home is extremely old. I believe that it is the oldest home in the area as it was used as a hunting cabin long before Frontier Trail existed. My home is much smaller than all of the surrounding homes. It currently has usable space of approximately 1,300 square feet. I do not believe that any of my neighbors have living space less than 2,000 square feet many considerable larger. Giving me the variance will greatly simplify this addition to my property. It will also assist in an attempt to save a very large and old maple tree that is currently sitting near my home. any other addition would mean that my home would jog over towards the root system of the maple tree and would more than likely damage the root system and ultimately kill the tree. Also note that my lot is less than the 20,000 square feet which the current code indicates lake lots need to be to be buildable. My lot is also very unusual as it is only 52.5 feet wide x 323 feet deep. Given these dimensions and the current front and rear yard set backs of thirty feet this is an unbuildable lot. Also please note that I am only requesting an additional setback of six inches to a very small portion of my proposed plan. Page i ~M~ Merch4, 1996 2:S4pm The existing structure is essentially an old "lake cabin," a block building with slab on grade construction. It does not conform to the other houses in the neighborhood, which are all substantial single family homes. By current standards, without the proposed remodeling, the building could be called an "eyesore". The variance as requested will allow me to bring my home to conformity with the homes in the neighborhood and provide needed room for my family of four. It will also have the added benefit of allowing me to save a very large maple tree on one side of the house. The lot itself is very unusual, being 52.5 feet wide and 323 feet deep, making it approximately 3,000 square feet smaller than the minimum buildable lake lot. The addition will add only approximately 200 square feet to the footprint of the building, but will add approximately 1000 square feet of additional space for my family and bring the building much closer to neighborhood standards. To my knowledge there are no other properties that have the same set of circumstances as this property within the area. As stated above the reason for requesting this variance is to refurbish an outmoded building and create room for my family. I have done nothing to create the hardship, the unusual configuration of the lot is creating difficulty in upgrading the building. Peter Dahl · VARIANCE.WP6 If granted this variance will not be injurious to the land in the area; in fact improving my property should have a positive impact on the area. If granted the building constructed pursuant to this variance will not impair any supply of light or air, as the net impact places a portion of the structure only 6 inches closer to the adjacent property. Page 2 {Mort) Mwch4, 1996 2:64pm I U ~ 9,~ T 9,~ ~ ~,~ I jU U t,j I i · -' I,# mooJpeq ~ [uooJpeq i r I ~1 I I cfi r L ijj i ,-] rL qleq · , I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 I I II II I I I I I I I / ii--Gl .~ gl, ,,q · _ -.',;,~-._ .'"~? ~' ': , fl t ,,.o.._ _ ~ 4.S, ' ' ;,' PAI[CEL I~ <~ PAI[CEL A lot3,AUD]:TOR' S rT--~---'T...- [ or Lot 3. ^UDZ'~., s ' SUBDZVZ$]:OI~ NO. 2,' I' 1"l.4t SUBDZVZSZON c,,,,v,, co,,.~. , .:;;, w:, ~o,~,.,.. . ~o,,,. ~,,,.0.. , .~, . ' nort:h~eet, o[' the ~ ' e~ Soutl',east 52.5 feet, . . ~o.,o o...Id Jot ).. c__- ..... ~...'... .' i ~ ..... -'T",/' ' I I'1'1 "_ ~ ~ ', .. , . , . . ("1 I .' N I I I , ~.~?- ,t . , .~. ~ , . . · ..::. "r-~--] '-:::'- ', ' I t · · ',4 ' '~ i~.:: · i · · ... ~.~ ~./!.[-~ . , : · · , ~ ' ~ -~ , . 51.5 · ~.~. - 52.5 ' I ' , ~' .,o~.o ,. ' . . . I · '~ "" '" ............ n' ,,~~%~~~ i~, .... .