Loading...
4 Variance 730 Vogelsberg TrailCITY OF OA DATE: June 10, 1996 DATE: !ASE #: 96-6 VAR By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: A 49.5 foot front yard variance for the construction of a garage addition at six inches from the from property line. 730 Vogelsberg Trail - Lot 2, Block 1, Bluff Creek Highlands James Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail Chaska, MN 55318 448-8825 .,, PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 2000 LAND USE PLAN: A2- Agriculanal Estate District Approximately 25,000 square feet N/A N - A2, Agricultural Estate District S - A2, Agricultural Estate District E - A2, Agricultural Estate District W - A2, Agricultural Estate District and BluffCreck Not available to the site. The site contains an existing single family home with a one stall attached garage. The property is heavily wooded and contains a steep bluff which slopes towards Bluff Creek. Large Lot Residential Sulerud Variance June 10, 1996 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-575 states that the front yard setback shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet in an A-2, Agricultural Estate Zoning District. BACKGROUND On June 5, 1972, the Chanhassen Village Council approved the plat of Bluff Creek Highlands Second Addition consisting of 4 lots and one ouflot. On October 20, 1975, the City Council approved a 20 foot setback variance for the construction of a new home and an attached single stall garage. The property at this time was zoned R-1 Single Family which required a 30 foot front yard setback. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals recommended that the Council approve the variance subject to the following conditions: le Statement from a professional soils engineer certifying the slope stability of the subject property; identification of construction techniques necessary to prevent the structure from sliding down the hill; and mitigative construction measures necessary to prevent abnormal erosion of the side slope during construction and thereat~er. 2. A statement from the City Attorney releasing the city from any liability. ANALYSIS The applicant has demonstrated a hardship in the physical surroundings and topography of the lot. The applicant is proposing two different alternatives for the garage addition which are identified as options A and B on the attached survey. Both options would require the same variance. Minimal grading and vegetation removal would be required for either option. Staff finds both options to be acceptable provided that a one foot setback be maintained from the front lot line. This notable reduction of the setback requirement is warranted by the fact that the applicant does not currently have a reasonable use of the property. The garage addition will not negatively impact the significant natural features of the site or obstruct the safe use of the roadway. Front yard setbacks are required to provide safe roadways, improve site lines, and provide for the efficient establishment and maintenance of public utilities. A reduced setback on the subject property will not impair the safe use of the road, site lines, or the efficient maintenance of public utilities because this short cul-de-sac only serves three residences. In addition, adequate access and turning radius exists for emergency vehicles and snow plowing equipment. There is no possibility that this road would be extended in the future or additional residences constructed on this cul-de- sac. The City's Engineering Department reviewed the proposed application and had no objections. Sulerud Variance June 10, 1996 Page 3 No variance is needed from the bluff setback requirement. Section 12-301(b) of the City Code states, "On parcels of land on which a building has already been consm~cted on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for additions to an existing building." The proposed garage addition will be over five (5) feet from the top of the bluf~ Upon review of surrounding properties within 500 feet, staff discovered that all homes have a two or three car garage. No other residence contains a single car garage. The Board has granted other variances in similar situations where variances were required to construct a two car garage. In 1991, the Board approved a variance for Peter Dahl on Frontier Court to replace a single car garage with a two car garage. Variances have also been granted in areas such at Red Cedar Point, Carver Beach, and along Lake Riley where small lots were created prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. 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: 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 has demonstrated hardships in the physical surroundings and topography of the lot. A single stall garage is not a reasonable use compared to other properties within 500 feet. All other homes have a two or three car garage. Without a variance, the applicant may be denied reasonable use of his property. Further, the lot predates ordinance requirements. b. The conaitions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: Other properties within the same zoning classification do not have the same hardships associated with steep bluffs. Under current ordinance requirements, all new homes must have a two car garage. In addition, new plats are reviewed to assure that adequate area exists for a reasonable size home and two car garage. Sulerud Variance June 10, 1996 Page 4 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 does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase the value of the parcel, but rather to enjoy a reasonable use of the property d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is not self-created as the lot and home predate current ordinance requirements. ee The gran~g 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 proposed garage addition will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land because the garage addition will not impair drainage or impact the safe use of the roadway. 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: The garage addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property as the appropriate side yard setbacks will be maintained. Impacts to the public street will be minimal as only three homes utilize this cul-de-sac. Sufficient room exists for emergency vehicle access, snow storage, and snow plowing equipment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve a forty-nine (49) foot setback variance from the front property line for the construction of a garage addition (option A or B as shown on the attached plans) subject to the following conditions: 1. An escrow fee of $50.00 shall be submitted for recor~g of the variance. Erosion control shall be installed and maintained during construction and until vegetation is reestablished. Sulerud Variance .Iune 10, 1996 Page 5 3. Submit a copy of the survey for the property showing the location of all existing and proposed structures as well as the septic tank(s), pump tank (if applicable) and the dminfield or mound location. ATFAC~S 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated June 6, 1996 2. Letter from the applicant dated May 21, 1996 3. Survey of property showing options A and B 4. Plat map of BluffCreek Highlands 2nd Addition 5. Application dated May 20, 1996 6. Drawings of proposed garage additions CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: June 6, 1996 SUBJECT: 96-6 VAR (John Sulerud, 730 Vogelsberg Trail) I was asked to review the variance proposal for the above referenced address. Analysis: There are no records of the onsite sewage treatment system in the building files. There are code mandated minimum setbacks from buildings for septic systems. In order to properly respond to this request, the location of the septic tank(s) and the treatment area should be indicated accurately on a survey. Recommendation: 1. Submit n copy of the survey for the property showing the location of all,e×isting and proposed structures as well as the septic tank(s), pump tank (if applidde) and the drainfield or mound location. May 21, 1996 John Rask City of Chanhassen Re: Variance application for 730 Vogelsberg Trail John, as we discussed, here is some background information that might be of some help. After building this home and living here for 20 years, it's our plan to finally expand our garage to two stalls as we always had planned. Within I mile, probably ½ the homes have 3 ear garages. I know of no one with just a single garage. The layout of these lots require that setback variances be the norm. Usual setbacks would require the whole house to be placed on the steep slopes. The best alternative in this sensitive bluff area is to place all structures as close as possible to the roacL The cul de sac size was designed unusually large to accommodate school bus uaffic. But, standard size school buses have never used this cul de sac. The effect was to leave little buildable land between setbacks and bluff slopes. It is our desire to have as little impact on the topography as possible. Therefore we have planned the most minimal garage expansion at the point closest the road. The re-aligned driveway will actually cover a smaller area of our lot, still draining to the street and the storm sewer system. With this garage project, we expect to also do some deck replacement and install some limited landscape walls to help establish vegetation to the west and north where the increasing shade density has made plant growth on steep slopes a difficulty. The actual addition will either be directly south of the existing stall, or it will provide an angled addition on the southeast comer squarely facing the street. In either ease, the setback variance needs will be the same. 'No setback variance is requested at the sideyard. The red-topped stakes mark the property line. The green-painted line on the driveway, and the non-painted stakes and string to the south, mark the angled addition. Either ease would have some overhang, therefore (also accommodating error) a variance is requested that permits construction up to a line 6 inches from the 60 foot radius property line. I work within 5 minutes of my home and could be available to answer your questions and take your s~gestions at the time of your site visit. Jifl~Sulerud ~/30 Vogelsberg Trail Chaska MN 55318 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY LAND SURVEYORS ~713 DUPONI AVENUE SOUTH a~$ 2084 Survey for: . DAHLE BROS. CONSTRUCTION t t We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Dated this 20th day of April, 1976. ~o~o..~ ~o~ o~ ,,o~ ~ ,/~,_.,..,,,,,,~.-~---'" :~""' --. ,,,. ,, .-",,- ,. El. is 100.5 MinnesC~~ .eglst~ati0n' .vi/ I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Cl-[ ) ~'~' ~ ' ~"~ ~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements 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/Attomey Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ 7,~''''~' 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. transparency*TWenty'six fullforSiZeeachfOldedplan eheet.C°P'" of the plane must be submitted, Including an 81/~'1 X 11.I reduced copy of ** Escrow .ill be required for other applicatione through the development co, ttlact NOTE- When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, I TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASONFORTHISREQUEST IE. J ~ E~ ~ F ~ ~,~G O ~=- .~ ~>~ , l-) D tt.) ~is ~pl~on mu~ ~ ~mplet~ in ~11 ~~~~$n or clea~y pfi~ a~ mu~ ~ a~r 1~ by allinfo~ation a~ plans ~uir~ by ~pl~le C~ O~in~ pm~. -~fom fi~ this ~pli~tion, ~u shou d ~nfer ~h ~e Planni~ ~p~e~ ~ d~e~i~ ~ s~cE~ o~in~ a~ p~uml ~uimme~ ~pli~le to ~ur ~l~tion. A ~e~inat~n of ~mpleteness of the ~pli~tion shall ~ made ~in ten business da~ of appli~tion subtotal. A ~en ~ of ~pli~on ~f=iencies shall ~ mal~ to ~e ~pli~N ~hin ten business da~ of ~pli~t~n. ~is is ~ ~ th= I ~ m~i~ ~pli~tion for the desc~ a=ion by the C~ a~ that I am insensible for ~mp¥~ ~h ~ ~ C~ mquireme~ ~ r~ to this r~uest. ~ ~pli~on shouU ~ p~~ in my name a~ I ~ ~e ~ whom ~e C~shouU ~n~ ~a~i~ any ma~er ~ini~ to ~is ~pl~tion. I ha~ a~ch~ a ~py of p~f of o~e=hip (e~her ~py of ~fs Dupr~te ~~te of T~, ~stm= of T~e or pumh=e ~r~me~), or I am the a~ho~ ~mon to m~e ~ ~li~n ~ ~e fee o~er has also s~n~ this ~pli~tbn. 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 c'~y hereby notif'ms 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. Date · 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.