Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 8, 2000 Public HearingCase: 2000-0820 Page: 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE AUGUST 8, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING Case #: 2000-0820 Barb Reed 4524 Fillmore Street NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (612) 597-2074 Owner: Address: Phone: Parcel Address: 4524 Fillmore Street NE Zoning: R-2, Single and Two- Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: LDR, Low Density Residential GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Ralph Pautsch Construction 17363 Guadalcanal Street Ham Lake, MN Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: R-2 South: R-2 East: R-2 West: R-2 Land Use North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: The applicant had originally proposed to build a garage measuring 22 feet by 30 feet as outlined in the original request, which exceeded the maximum lot coverage. This request has been downsized to meet the maximum 30% lot coverage in place. The applicant is now proposing to build a detached garage measuring 20 feet by 30 feet (600 square feet) at the location above. The variance is being requested to allow for a proposed garage to be built nineteen feet and four inches (19' 4") fi.om the rear property line abutting the alley. The proposed garage would face the west or towards the alley. The ordinance in question is 9.104(5), which requires garages to be set back a minimum distance of twenty (20) feet from property line when the garage doors face a street or alley. The proposed garage would infringe eight inches (8") into the setback area. The existing house occupies 1,691 square feet of property, with the proposed detached garage occupying an additional 600 square feet. The total amount of lot coverage proposed with the addition of the detached garage would be 2,291 square feet. Ordinance 9.104(5) allows for a maximum lot coverage of 30% The lot measuring approximately 7,744 square feet has a Case: 2000-0820 Page: 2 maximum lot coverage of 2,323 square feet. This proposal meets lot coverage requirements. As stated on the application, the purpose of the request is to provide off-street covered parking for existing tenants. The tenants currently park on a concrete slab abutting the alley. Case Histo~. : There are no pertinent zoning cases on the lot or in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS Surrounding ProperS_: The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west is zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential, and is used residentially. Technical Review: Accessory structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. Requirements are as follows. · No accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure or fifteen (15) feet, whichever is less - the height of the garage should be within these limits. · No accessory structure or combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet - the proposed detached garage covers 600 square feet - meeting requirements · Any lot over 6,500 square feet in size may have a lot coverage of up to 30% - the lot is 7,744 square feet. The maximum allowable lot coverage for this lot is 2,323 square feet. This proposal would cover 2,291 square feet. This proposal meets lot coverages. · Detached accessory structures must be six (6) feet or more from the principal structure - the proposed detached garage will be approximately six (6) feet away from the principal structure. · Whenever a garage is designed so that the vehicle entry door is facing a street or alley, the distance between the door and the lot line shall be 20 feet or more - the proposed detached two-car garage will be placed nineteen feet four inches (19'4") from the rear lot line, with the garage doors facing the alley. The proposal requires an eight inch (8") variance. Staffhas visited the site and believes that a slight hardship exists with relation to the topography of the site, which limits where and how a garage could be built without reasonable difficulty. There are also existing concrete blocks surrounding the current slab area that are at or below grade. Because of these issues staff has looked at possible options for building a reasonable sized garage to fit within the setbacks. The proposed garage could be placed on the property to meet setbacks if the garage doors were faced to the north. However, this proposal would require the owner to remove the existing sidewalk that leads up to the house on the south property line, as well as removing an existing patio area for the tenants. However the outcome, the proposed two + car garage would intend to complement the property and would also provide covered and secured parking facilities for the tenants. This would be a great improvement for the property. Case: 2000-0820 Page: 3 As mentioned above, hardship needs to be established or circumstances unique to the property in question need to be established in order for a variance to be granted. Section 9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance also states that the Commission shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Ordinance in instances where their "strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and to recommend variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance". Section 1 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Four of the purpose statements are identified below: · protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare; · dividing the City into zones and districts restricting and regulating therein the location, height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, and the density and distribution of population; · providing adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property; and, · preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating the use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land and buildings surrounding them. Compliance with Ci~_ Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential Development. The proposal does not impact the goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan. Summa~: The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal will create covered and secured off-street parking for two + vehicles, which will help to enhance the character of the residential neighborhood and provide needed storage space for the two-family structure. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal would infringe 8 inches into the setback area for garages with doors facing an alley. CONCLUSION Sta__ff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request because there does appear to be a hardship on which to base approval of the variance. The proposal appears to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. It is staff's opinion that because the lot coverages will be met, the property will not be overcrowded, and adequate light, air, and convenient access to the property will be maintained and improved upon. There is also an existing garage with doors facing the alley Case: 2000-0820 Page: 4 adjacent to this property, that is approximately 14 feet from the property line. Recommended Motion: Move to recommend City Council approval of the 8" variance request to construct a 20 foot by 30 foot detached garage facing the alley at 4524 Fillmore Street NE due to topographic hardship and existing sidewalk and patio, and the proposal is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Attachments: -Completed application form; Site Survey Plan; and Public Notice CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS .~Application For: Rezoning Variance Privacy Fence Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Site Plan Approval Other Case No.. Fee: ~ 2. Legal Description of Subject Property: Owner: Name: Address: u/S'2 M ~//~ ~d ~- Phone: ~'~/-2F3 ~ Zoning: Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning' Present Use ..Reason for Request: Section Proposed Zoning, Proposed Use 8. Exhibits Submitted (maps, diagrams, etc.) Acknowledsment and Si~nature: The undersisned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of lav, for the purpose of /nduc/n$ the City o[ Columbia Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ord/nances o£ the City of Columb£a Heights and the laws of the State of Hinnesota. Signature of Applicant~~~~- Date: ~- 2.0- Taken By: T'''~ GRAPHIC SCALE 0 10 20 949.9 FOUND 1/'.2' 9~t9.5 , '948.9 (m 1_ inch = Z0 fL STONE /--RETAINING WALL 955,0 · 952.6 N 89'59"~1" W --128.97-- 'S. OF PROPERTY UNE 952.9 1 STORY BRICK & STUCCO DWELUNG NO. 4524 FENCE 0.2 N. OF PROPERTY UNE 4. FT. HIGH CHAIN ~ ,'- UNK FENCE ON UNE ~ 958.1 958.7 ---28.7 -'--, / 4..(, 958.7__.28.9 .... ,949J rPROPERTY UNE 950. // 951.6 951.9 959.1 4 FT CHAIN 4. FT CHAIN (..~/' LINK FENCE / UNK FENCE j GARAGE 950.5 --129.23-- -/" ~ FENCE 0,4 N. OF PROPERTY UNE-~ y ~ S 89'59'53" E / UTHE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 9 30 X 958.9 z 958.7 JOB NO. 000627 000627 25/30/24 WEGSCHEID, ~RRY JAD VANCE SURVEYING 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 & ENG1NEE G CO. Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 JERRY WEGSCHEID SURVEYED: 1une, 2000 DRAFTED: June 15, 2000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 and the Narth Haft of Lot 9, Block 7, Sheffield's Second Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota. LIMITATIONS & NOTES: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal cotmsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown- 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monumenIz or verifying old mon-ments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determi.ing other elevations for use on this site. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "*" Denotes 1/'2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. 949.9 949.5[ X CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. u~ I 948.4.X >.- · 9235, President BENCHMARK: CENTERUNE OF ALLEY--' ELEVATION=947.69 O_.,HEEP~ Y 1127~.' LA . 4655 466O 46bl 4648 4649 4642 4647 4656 4641 4650 4655 4624 4629 4616 4617 4612 4609 4605 4606 1101 1111 128.0' 12B.0' 47TH 4657 4654 4651 4648 4645 4642 4641 4636 4657 4650 4655 4625 4624 4619 4618 4615 4610 4607 4606 4601 4600' ~ 4557 4542c 4557 4536 4531 4534 4525 4530 4519 4515 4516 4509 x4510 1035. 4500' 4555 4556:~ 4549 4550 4543 4544 4555 4532 4529 ,4524 4525 ...... 45~6 4519, 4514 4515 4506 4507 4655 4650 4645 4644 4659 4658 4655 4652 4627 4626 462,1 4620 461~ 4614 4609 4608 4605 4602 AVE 4655 1400 1440 464..3 4637 4~25 ~ PARKVIEW. 4615 ~ AVE 101.9' 55'.0~ 50.0' 52.5' 52.5' 55.0' 50.0' 52.5' [ 52.5' [ 4555 ;-~ ~ o g 8 ~ o "~ 4545 ~ --- 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~453~ 103.3' 55.0'~,0' 52.5' i 5Z5' 52.5'52.5'52,5'52,5' 45 1/2 i AVE Case: 2000-0821 Page: 1 Case #: Owner: Address: Phone: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE AUGUST 8, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING 2000-0821 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Same Kevin Doty 1845 Fairway Drive NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 574-9606 Parcel Address: 1845 Fairway Drive NE Zoning: R- 1, Single-Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: LDR, Low Density Residential Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: R-1 South: R-1 East: R-1 West: R-1 Land Use North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: The applicant is proposing to add additional attached garage space measuring 13 feet wide by 24 feet deep (312 square feet) at the location above. The variance is being requested to allow for the proposed addition to be built 21 ½ feet from the rear property line. The proposed addition would be on the east side of the house. The ordinance in question is 9.107(4), which requires principal structures to be set back a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage would infringe not closer than 21 ½ feet to the rear property line. Attached garages are considered as part of the principal structure and subject to the same setbacks as the house. The existing house occupies 1,066 square feet of property, with the existing attached garage occupying an additional 424 square feet, and the proposed addition occupying 312 square feet. The total lot coverage of the house with the additions will be 1914 square feet, well within ordinance requirements. The purpose of this request is to gain additional covered garage parking and storage. The applicant currently has a two-car garage, but one stall was partially converted into extra kitchen space by previous owners, thus leaving only one usable covered parking space. Case: 2000-0821 Page: 2 Case Histo~_ : There are no previous Planning and Zoning Commission cases on this site. However, a variance case 9512-56 for the property at 1850 49th Avenue, abutting 1845 Fairway on the north, was approved by the Commission and Council in December 1995. A variance of thirteen feet (13') was approved for an addition onto the rear of the house. Refer to plat and address map for applicable lot layout. ANALYSIS Surrounding ProperS_: The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west is zoned R-l, Single-Family Residential, and is used residentially. Technical Review: Residential structures are regulated under Section 9.104(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. Requirements are as follows. · Minimum lot size shall be 8,400 square feet - the subject property is 9,838 square feet which meets this requirement. · Minimum lot width is 70 feet - the subject property is 105 feet wide which meets this requirement. · Front yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet from property line - the existing house is approximately 28 feet. · Rear yard shall be at least 30 feet - the existing house is approximately 26 feet from the rear property line at its closest point. A majority of the house meets the 30 foot setback from the rear property line as the lot configures at an angle on the north lot line. (See plat map). The existing deck is also within the 30 foot setback area, and is approximately 15 feet from the rear lot line. The house and deck are considered legal non-conforming. · Side yard shall be a minimum of 7 feet - the existing house and proposed addition will be placed at no closer than 7.5 feet from the side yard, which meets this requirement. · An accessory structure shall be considered to be an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building. · For single-family homes, no accessory structures or any combination of accessory structures shall exceed 1,000 square feet - the existing garage is 424 square feet and the proposed addition is 312 square feet totaling 736 square feet which meets this requirement. · Any lot over 6,500 square feet may have a lot coverage of up to 30% - the maximum lot coverage on the property is 2,951 square feet - the applicant has proposed 1,912 square feet which meets the requirement. With the exception of the rear yard setback requirement, the proposal meets the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As mentioned above, the existing attached garage and the Case: 2000-0821 Page: 3 proposed attached garage do not meet the setback requirements. Note that the structure was built in 1965, prior to the adoption of these regulations, so it is considered legally non-conforming. Section 9.104(3) of the ordinance states that normal maintenance of a non-conforming structure is permitted, provided it does not extend or intensify the non-conformity. The proposal will further encroach into the setback area, as the garage will be expanded on the east side of the lot. Considering that the non-conformity will be intensified, a permit cannot be granted without the approval of a variance. This addition matches up with the existing attached garage but is closer to the lot line because of the shape of the lot. Section 9.105(3)(d) states the following "In recommending a variance, it shall be found that by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of lot or where by reason of exceptional topography, soil conditions, tree number or location or water conditions the owner of such lot would have an undue hardship in using his lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the rules of the zoning district." Staff has visited the site and believes that a hardship exists with relation to the shape of the lot, which restricts an addition onto the east or north of the house because of the setbacks. Because of these issues staff has looked at possible options for adding additional attached garage space within the setbacks. There appear to be no other locations on the lot that could reasonably accommodate this addition or a similar addition to meet setbacks. If the lot were square or rectangular shaped, the addition would meet setbacks. If a detached structure were built to meet setbacks, the depth of the garage would be approximately 15 feet, which could not accommodate a normal sized vehicle. Whatever the outcome, the proposed garage addition would intend to complement the property and would also provide additional covered and secured parking for the owners. This would be a nice improvement to the property. The proposed addition would appear to match up with adjacent homes and their properties. However, there is only one other home on the same block that has the appearance of a three-car garage. Is the second stall necessary or does it create an undesirable precedent for future garage additions not meeting setbacks? As mentioned above, hardship needs to be established for a variance to be granted. Section 9.105(3)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance also states that the Commission shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Ordinance in instances where their "strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and to recommend variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance". Section 1 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Four of the purpose statements are identified below: · protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare; · dividing the City into zones and districts restricting and regulating therein the location, height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, and the density and distribution of population; · providing adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property; and, · preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating the Case: 2000-0821 Page: 4 use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to surrounding land and buildings. Compliance with Ci~_ Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Low Density Residential Development. The proposal does not impact the goals and objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan. Summa~_ : The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal will create additional covered and secured off-street parking for two vehicles, which will help to enhance the character of the residential neighborhood and provide needed parking space for the single-family structure. 2. The addition will follow an established building line that matches the existing structure. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The addition will intensify and extend a non-conforming structure and infringe into the rear yard setback area, and could set a precedent for approval of other similar type proposals. CONCLUSION Staff Recommendation: Stiff recommends approval of the request because there does appear to be a lot shape hardship on which to base approval of the variance. The proposal appears to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Considering that the proposed 21 ½ foot rear yard setback is consistent with the adjacent properties in the surrounding area, and because the irregular shape of the lot is not conducive to future garage additions meeting setbacks, staff recommends approval of the variance. Also, a prior variance granted to the neighbor at 1850 49th Avenue was five feet closer than the proposed variance requested. It is staff's opinion that because minimum lot coverages will be met, the property will not be overcrowded, and adequate light, air, and convenient access to the property will be maintained and improved upon. The proposal seems consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Staff has received no objections to this request as of yet. However, staff does have some concerns about this site and some possible future additions that would also need variance approvals. Staff would recommend the Commission discuss the ramifications of similar type variance approvals and their potential to dictate and set precedence in the future. Does allowing one variance potentially create the possibilities for more variances? Case: 2000-0820 Page: 5 Recommended Motion: Move to recommend City Council approval of the 8 ½ foot variance request due to the irregular shape of the lot, and the proposal is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Attachments: · Completed application form; Site Survey Plan; Plat Map; and Public Notice CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ~pplication For: RezoninE Variance Privacy Fence Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Site Plan Approval Other Street Subject Property: Address of 2. Legal Description of Subject Property: Applicant Phon.: Owner: Phone: Description of Request: setback ~ariance 6. ZoninK: Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning Present Use ~[~_  Reason for Request: attached garage Section t Proposed Zoning ~/~ Proposed Use ~ ~ ~ ~-- to allow the construction of an addi~ion,:on ~ast side of 8. Exhibits Submitted (maps, diagrams, etc.) AcknowledKment and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducin~ the City of Columbia HeiEhts to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Columbia Heights and the laws of the State .of.~innesota. ~ ~ / SiEnature of Applicant: '~/~ Date: 7/pO J Taken By:_ CERTIFICATE' OF SURVEY For BEL ~A~ B~ILDERS ~YVA~ DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Block 2, HILLTOP THIRD [INIT Scale:Z-"-30' ~ hereby certify that t~ii.s is a true and correct representation of a survey of ~..a boundari'es of the lend above described end. of 'the .location of ali bulldlng~ if any, thereon, and all visible".encroachments, If anY, from or on said land. ted this. 1st day of' April 1965. ' EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK · .... . s.~veyors ~' 30 /:?.24 1600 / 1620 I 164~ 7~.0' 7~.0' ] 75.0' | 75.0' 1600 1610 1620 1630 17O0 KORDIAK PAI~'K ?§.0' 70.0' 70.0' 70.0' ?0,0' 70.0' ~1. 630 1700 1710 1720;1730 1740 1 .-;...1665 1675 1705 1~15 1725 1735 1 FAIRWAY 1860 LAK \ 4848 4838 4832 4826 4820 FAIR 4649 464-5