Loading...
1 VAR 8451 Pelican CourtCITY OF PC DATE: 7/7/99 CCDATE: CASE #: 99-5 VAR By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for an eight foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of ah addition. 8451 Pelican Court (Lot 25, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West) Terry W. Bolen 8451 Pelican Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 906-4082 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential Approximately 15,760 sq..ft./.36 acres N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: N: S: E: W: PUD-R, Single Family Home PUD-R, Single Family Home PUD-R, Twin Homes PUD-R, Single Family Homes Available to the site A single family home with an attached garage 'exists on the site. The site drops significantly to the east down to the twin homes. 2000 LAND USE pLAN: Low Density Residential 3 Burlwood Dr 4 Rosewood Dr 5 Bowers Place 5 Bolen Variance July 7, 1999 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATION Section 20-615 (5) (b) states that in single family residential districts the minimum rear yard setback is 30 feet (Attachment 5). BACKGROUND This site is located within the Lake Susan Hills subdivision which began in 1987. The subject site is "triangular shaped" and the house is located in the center of the site. The existing home fits tightly on the lot. The applicant proposes to construct a 12 foot by 16 foot (192 sq. ft.) addition on the east side of an existing home enclosing the deck at the rear of the home. In 1990, a deck was inadvertently approved that encroaches three feet in to the required 25 foot setback for decks (the sketch plan was not drawn to scale for the deck addition). ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback for the construction of an enclosed porch addition over an existing deck. This proposed addition extends eight feet into the rear yard setback. The 30 foot setback line essentially slices the addition in half. Staff does not believe that a hardship has been demonstrated. The applicant contends the home was placed incorrectly on the lot, creating the hardship. The survey indicates the home maintains the minimum 30 foot front and rear yard setbacks. This is not uncommon. The majority of the homes in the City are placed at the minimum front yard setback. A hardship occurs when the owner does not have a reasonable use of the property. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, a reasonable use is a single family home. A single family home with a 3-stall garage exists on the site. The inability to construct an enclosed porch within the required rear yard setback does not constitute a hardship. It was mentioned in the application letter that the addition could not be located on the north elevation of the home because "there is no practical/affordable area to the north that we could expand our living space needs." According to a survey on file with the City, the north side of the home is approximately 37 feet from the property line, the south side of the home is approximately 28 feet from the property line, and the east side of the home is 34 feet from the property line. The porch addition could be placed on the north or south sides of the home which requires only a 10 foot setback. The addition should be placed in the buildable area of the site. Another reasonable, feasible and practical option is available. Bolen Variance July 7, 1999 Page 3 Staff has reviewed the building permit file to ascertain whether a porch addition had been contemplated as part of the deck application. In May 1990, the city received an application for and issued a building permit for the installation of a deck. We were unable to locate any references to the potential use of the deck for an enclosed porch. Additionally, while decks may encroach into the required setback, it is not reasonable to assume that another addition would also be approved that encroaches into the required setback. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, therefore, staff does not recommend approval. 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: ao bo co 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 this criteria. Finding: The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. A single family home and attached garage exist on the property. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to construct an addition on the south and north elevations of the home and still meet their needs. The shape or size of the lot does not prohibit an addition from being constructed. While the house pad placement may constrict any addition, it does not preclude an addition to the home. All of the homes in this neighborhood maintain the required setbacks. This variance would depart downward from the existing standards. 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 PUD-R zoning district. 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 this request is to construct a porch. The outcome of this change will increase the value of the parcel. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Bolen Variance July 7, 1999 Page 4 Finding: The hardship is self-created. The applicant has the opportunity to construct an addition that maintains the required setback. eo 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 will permit a structure to be located into a required setback thus reducing the setback between the home and the property to the east. 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 variation will enable a structure to maintain a rear yard setback that is significantly less than what would be found in other properties in the PUD-R zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies variance #99-5 for an 8 foot variance from the 30 rear yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct an addition within the required setbacks." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Building Permit Application for 8451 Pelican Court dated 5/6/90 3. Deck Plans 4. Certificate of Survey with Buildable Area Highlighted 5. Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks 6. Section 20-908, Yard Regulations 7. Public hearing notice and property owners g:\plan\ck\boa\Bolen 99-5 var.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612).937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION C~' OF CH';., N'H/~ SS EN ....... :u/F.S JUN 0 2 1999 ADDRESS: .~L[ ~ t '~e. / i ¢ (x m, ~ ,~ ,,,',Jr' TELEPHONE(Daytime) OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: & i 70 7'-) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements yVariance Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* __ Zoning Appeal __ Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment __ Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review __ Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escro_.w~ Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50~UP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes ~ Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ '7 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. 'Duildi~)g material samplcs must bc sub.,itted w~ttt site plan reviews. .-'*'rw~,nty-,~ix f, ,11 sP'" .~"~'~cl copie~ of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sh~e~t. ~ Escrow will be requited for other applicatiens through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. )ROJECT NAME .OCATION EGAL DESCRIPTION JUN 0 2 1999 OTAL ACREAGE IETLANDS PRESENT YES mNO RESENT ZONING FOUESTED ZONING 'RESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IEQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION LF-.ASON FOR THIS REQUEST 'TO ob- o. q o,, -fro build 'his application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information nd plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning ~epartment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. , determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written price of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days.of application. hi~ is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with II City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom ~e City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either >py of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make ~is application and the fee owner has also signed this application. w]ql keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further ~derstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any ..rthorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of ~y knowledge. he c'rty hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing quirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day <tension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review derisions are approved by the applicant. '~,~ C~, gnature of-J~olicant ~naturT;f-l:{ee Owner ::)piication Received on Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. II ~e applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. To: Planning Commission Staff Subject: Application of Variance Date: June 1, 1999 From: Teny & Barbara Bolen 8451 Pelican Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 CI'rV Og' CHANHASSE "' h! ,/ED JUN 0 £ 1999 Let me start by saying that I understand the importance and the need to have city regulations for governing the development of a city. We purchased this house 9 years ago with the hopes and dreams of someday adding on some kind of addition to accommodate our growing family. This is why in 1991 we built a 12' x 16' deck and had the specifications and materials called out on the plans to accommodate a future 3 - season porch. It was then built to those specifications with the city inspector's approval. It wasn't long after the purchase of this property that we really understood where the tree boundaries existed. We were told by neighbors and some sub-contractors that" Joe Miller Homes," the general contractor/developer of this development, placed our house too far back on the property and needed to use earth moving machinery (scrapers) to bring in thousands of yards of fill material to give us a backyard. It also wasn't centered in the middle of our "pie shaped lot." The house was placed too far to the southwest leaving us with only the north side with usable land for additional living space increases. But, as you view our property you will see that there is no practical/affordable area to the north that we could expand our living space needs. In our opinion, the developer created this "hardship" because they either read the blueprints wrong or miscalculated the measurements from the survey crew and placed the house on the lot in an inappropriate location. In addition to the above mentioned, I would like all of you to know that we have refinanced our house to accommodate this addition and also own $500 worth of trusses that were special ordered a while back because of long lead times. We assumed that since the original deck was approved in 1991 by the city inspector with the specifications to accommodate a 3-season porch that the city permit would not be an issue. In closing I would like to say, that due to the severe elevation change which includes a 50 to 60 foot incline at or close to the property line in question, enclosing my existing deck would have little, if any impact on adjacent property. Also, for the last 7 years the lack of progress on the "Jasper Property development" below me has impacted my ability to make improvements to my property which includes postponement of this addition, and additional landscaping and erosion prevention. It is our hope that you take these issues into account when going through your review process and approve this variance request. Thank you. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION GENERAL INFORMATION Date: ~-~ -~0 Single Famlly: ~ Multlple Dwelling: ' < Contr.ctor: ~ ~.[' RESIDENTIAL DWELLING No. or Units: Add~ess: Phone:~. Lot No: Parcel Identification NO: S~') ~(, < ~ S½:~oning · --('~3 Section No:/~ Nt: Oistriet:_ Estimated Completion Pete: NEW OWELLING Valuation of Home Exeludinq Land: Square Footage: 1st Floor: 2nd Floor: 3rd Floor: 4th Floor: Total: Heating System: Oil: Gas: Electric: Forced Air: Hot Water: Air Conditioning: Yes No No. of ½ Baths: No. of 3/4 Baths: No. of Full Baths: No. of Bedrooms: No. of Fireplaces: Type - Masonry: Metal: Other.: Basement Finished: Explain: Unfinished: .~..,~.__ ~.arage: Attached Detached Tuek-unde~ Dimension8 ts a variance requi~ed: Yes N~_ If so, has variance been approved: Yes N~ ~ISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS, ETC. Falue of Improvement: ,~(~ ~, New: X Alter: Repair: Addition: [xplain: >imensions: /,;~ /g' Squ~e Feet: /~ 'HIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A 8UILDING PERMIT AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD AS THE ACTUAL BUILDING PE:~MIT. 'HE UNDERSIGNEO HEREBY AGREES TO O0 ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ~ND THE RULINGS OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ,pplicant's Signature, 1~ ~ C ~/~ ~l_~r.~i/J) Telephone No. <w)-~"Z//d?o?, <h) VV~" ¢~Z  . P~eck Fee-- fficia3 D e St~e Fee ~ ngineering Department~~ ~ Date ity Planner Planning Case No./Date ~sessment Clerk Date SAC Sewer Surcharge Park Dedication Fee Trail Dedication Fee' Water Unit Sewer Unit Interest Water Meter TOTAL and Recreation Date £ -IVJ.OJ. I ~00~ J " C] BAO~J cl d~ '006[-Z~6 ~OID~a?NI ONl(]3~:q~ ~3¥D 1¥^O;~ad¥ (3NV NOIJ. D3dSNI 1VNj_4 ll~NR ~Oq~V ADNVdFO~O ON 'S~WlJ. llV IV 3IlS iOf NO ]ISVSS3DDV LSFIW C]~¥D llW}J3d GNV ]At~rlS 'SNVld a]AOaddV OI~.L] ~IOSI 9 N I >t ~ 'V I,,N ~J3ONI~IS puo 9NI::)¥dS 'X'-'~/IA1.9 .LHeI:IH 'NII~I ,,98 ~ --nvNaNYn~ C N330 N'Vqd NOII'VOO9 ;W31d FOR: CEllTIFICATE. OF SURVEY JOSEPH Mil. I FR CONS'r;. ,,) · '- = DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. (000.0,]: PROPOSED ELEV. ,/ *D-acK / = WOOD STAKE PLACED o - IRON MON. SET ~ = IRON MON. INPLAGE BEARINGS.ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR ELEV. qf~'~ GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. q ~/,7 BASEMENT ELEV. ~ e TOP BLOOK ELEV. E&P_ 000.0 - EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor u'hder the laws of the State of Minneso~,j Date: !t)).//~ , /'~ ] /q~c/ ~"F~egistration No. 14700 / SCHOBORG I_AND SURVEYING INC. Rt, 1, Box 208 g72-3221 Delano, MN 55328 JOB # Book - Page lZ -¢'3 Scale I"='fO' ZONING (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. § 20-615 (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference--Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (1) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually (2) Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Loti Wh.re Frontage Il Measured At 8etb~ok Line (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. Neck I Flag Lots - o...,Fr°7 Lot Lin· I e I I I · I I I I · lO0/Lot WIdth.~ : i I I I I S I I I L-- L._.__I_...J (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: ~) For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 (6) a. (7) c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall 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 remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note~Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617m20-630. Reserved. ARTICI.E XIII. '~-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 ZONING § 20-908 increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required for the highest building otherwise Permitted in the district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measurements shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question, subject to the following qualifications: (1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be.open and unobstructed. (2) A yard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for another building. (3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provided, however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks. (4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets. Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances granted from a required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments): a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies, open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet; unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be permitted by conditional use permit° b. The above-named features may project into any required yard adjoining an interior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above. c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a ten-foot minimum front yard. d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the following are permitted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory structures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balconies, breezeways and open porches, .unenclosed decks and patios, and one-story bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet. Supp. No. 10 1233 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, '1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Request for a Rear Yard Variance APPLICANT: Terry Bolen LOCATION: 8451 Pelican Court NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Terry Bolen, is requesting a variance to the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a three season porch on property zoned RSF and located at 8451 Pelican Court. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. make a recommendation to the City Council. The commission will then Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 24, 1999. Powers Place 5 r- f.~ W W r.h 0.,T Ill__iLO >~ J ~ wJ~ J~ <0~ O~ zz OzZ <~z Omz mz Z > Z _ ~Z W ~m < m < ~< ~ < Oo T Z -r- 0 -I -- Z ~ Z Z ~ ~ w 0 Z 0 =~o~ -0~ ~ WvJ w 7 z.~= Oo ~oz' ._] -- I.l_l g- o~z 0 ~ (3© zOZ~ F_Lo rrz 0 ~ zOZ zm~. < ~ ~Z ~ 3~Z Z~Z ~LU oOZ moz z~W ~ w --w ~ 0~ ~ ~ Z Z ~Z ~< T 0~ (9 co rD z ww -~,~ Z w co Z I 0 ~o z~z ~ ~ ~ --~w ~w ~w ~m 0W~ m W Z ~ Z Zm~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ w Z o) z LIJ 0 ..2 w ZnT WoZ mo( C) O~z woz wu.. m~)7 zrrZ oLU~ rnZZ o<LU O~ t--O Z w~Z o~m z <~a m >-_D -r'm~ Z w ~ razZ-