Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-3851 ExE PC SRDate Application Received: 07/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/28/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/26/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 9 August 2016 Subject: #16-3851, Peter Bluth, 2413 Carman Street Variances Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Applicable Code Sections Exhibit G. Site Photo Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Public Comments Exhibit J. Property Owners List Exhibit K. Plat Map Background The applicant is requesting a side yard setback and a rear yard setback to permit an expansion upward of the existing 1,014 square foot garage which based on the size and existing setbacks is a non-conforming oversized accessory structure (OAS). Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct an addition to the home over an existing grade-level deck where a screen porch currently exists which would result in a separation of approximately 9 feet from the garage where a 10 foot separation setback is required. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting side and rear setback variances in order to add a second story to the existing non-conforming garage, and a structure-to-structure setback variance in order to construct an addition to the house less than 10 feet from the garage. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sections 78-350, 78-1434, 78-1435, 78-1438, & 78-1439 - Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Variance Needed? Front (Shoreline Dr) House = 30’ OAS = 30’ House=49.7’ OAS=102’ House=49.7’ OAS=102’ No Rear (south) House = 30’ OAS = 30’ House=65’ OAS=11.9’ House=54.2’ OAS=11.9’ Yes, OAS Side Street (Carman St) House = 15’ OAS= 30’ House=45.2’ OAS=84’ House=45.2’ OAS=84’ No West Side House= 30’ OAS= 30’ House=65’ OAS=28.4’ House=65’ OAS=28.4’ Yes, OAS Separation between House and OAS 10’ separation House/porch & OAS = 10’ separation New Addition= 9’ Yes Section 78-350 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’’ Actual 21,149 s.f. (0.48 acre) 140’ Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 21,149 s.f. (0.48 acre) Allowed: 3,172 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,171 s.f. (10%) Proposed: 2,267 s.f. (10.7%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 2 21,149 s.f. 6,344 s.f. (30 %) 4,708 s.f. (22.6%) 4,972 s.f. (23.5%) FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 3 of 5 Applicable Regulations: Rear and Side Yard Setback Variances (Code Section 78-1434) The property is a corner lot. By definition, as the short side, Shoreline Drive is considered the “front” yard for setback purposes; the south lot line is the rear. The garage exceeds 1,000 square feet and is therefore defined as an oversized accessory structure (OAS) requiring additional setbacks. The property owner would like to construct a second story over the OAS, an upward expansion, to allow for storage and living space on the second level. Because the OAS does not meet the required 30-foot setbacks from all property lines, variances are required. A side setback variance is requested to allow expansion of the second story 28.4’ from the side lot line where a 30-foot setback is required; additionally a variance is requested to allow expansion 11.9’ from the rear lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. Building to Building Separation Variance (Code Section 78-1438) The code requires a 10-foot separation between buildings to reduce the appearance of massing. The existing screen porch structure is 10 feet from the nearest garage corner, however the property owner proposes to construct the addition in line with the foundation of the west side of the house to the extent of the existing deck. This results in a one foot encroachment into the 10’ separation requirement from corner to corner. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed addition and second story on the garage are residential in nature. There is adequate space for light air and open space between the proposed addition and garage; the proposed second story addition will not further encroach into the rear or side setbacks. The variances are in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of improvements to a single family residence and residential garage in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 4 of 5 a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of additions to the existing garage, an oversized accessory structure, within the 30 foot side and rear setback areas appears to be reasonable as the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and topography separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors. The proposed setback between the house and the garage at 9 feet is a corner -to-corner measurement. The encroachment will not create an unreasonable perception of additional massing. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The size of the garage, and the size and orientation property were not the result of actions by the landowner. The neighboring home is set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open space between the garage and the home; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed additions to the garage and home will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The existing home plus detached garage to be expanded are set back sufficiently from Carman Street and it does not appear that a second story addition on the existing garage will adversely impact the neighbor to the south who has provided supportive comments. The structures on adjacent lots are set back 62 feet for the home and 27 feet for the detached garage to the north; and the home to the south is over 84 feet from the property line. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The applicant’s home is a corner lot with a defined front yard on Shoreline Drive with the functional front facing Carman Street. The garage, constructed in 1975, is in a nonconforming location on the property. The proposed improvements to the garage will not increase the nonconformity. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The nonconforming location of the garage and the corner lot status make this property unique in the neighborhood. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The location and size of the garage as well as the garage’s proximity to the home create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the Owner. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 5 of 5 Septic System Status The property is served by city sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the garage constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements or changing the footprint. The proximity of the house to the garage further limits options. The encroachment of a corner of the garage by one foot into the separation distance is minimal and does not appear to be impactful as a full wall encroachment from a crowding standpoint. Public Comments The public comments received are included as Exhibit I. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variances as requested. Staff would also suggest the applicant be requested to enter into the OAS covenant which states: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property.