Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-30 NAC Planning ReportPLANNING REPORT TO: Tom Melena FROM: Troy D. Hagen 1 Scott Richards DATE: 30 December 1998 RE: Oak Park Heights - Krongard Construction - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 798.02 - 98.11 BACKGROUND _iRTHWEST ASSOCIAT3 CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Krongard Construction is requesting a side yard setback variance to allow continued construction of a two family residence located at 5871/5873 Oxboro Avenue North. The subject property is legally described as Lots 5 and 6 of the East Oaks Addition. The subject site is zoned R-B, Residential/Business Transitional. The two family residence is currently being constructed, however, during the foundation inspection, the Building Official discovered the foundation had been placed nine feet from the east property line instead of ten feet. The contractor has indicated that the survey was unclear as to the location of the building setback. The Building Official allowed construction to resume pending the approval of a variance for the side yard setback. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Site Plan 5775 WAYZ.ATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5 5 4 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2- 595-9636 FAX 6 1 2 - 5 9 5 - 9 8 3 7 E- M Al L N AC @ WI NTER N ET.COM ANALYSIS Variance. Due to the error made by the contractor, the construction of the two family residence encroaches one foot into the side yard setback. In order for the construction to continue, and the building to be occupied, the applicant requires a side yard setback variance allowing the home to be built nine feet from the east property line, instead of the required ten feet. A request for a variance may not be granted unless the following can be demonstrated: 1. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. a. Special conditions may include exceptional topographical or water conditions of, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. b. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Title. c. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. If the variance is denied, the applicant will have an unfinished home that cannot be occupied, simply because of an error in the original placing of the foundation. Reconstruction of the foundation and sturcture would be, at this point, costly and avoidable. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use. Denying the applicant the ability to finish construction as the foundation exists would deny the applicant the right to put the property to reasonable use. 2 3. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not result from actions of the applicant. Although the applicant created the need for the variance, we feel the error should not require total replacement of the structure. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. The encroachment of one foot into the side yard setback is negligible in this particular situation. Rather than require the foundation and structure to be removed, the completion of construction shall, in this case, be acceptable. 5. The request is not a result of non - conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The request is not the result of non - conforming land, structures or buildings in the same district. 6. The request is not a use variance. The request is not a use variance. 7. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. The variance of one foot is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. 8. The request does not create an inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses. The building being one foot closer to the east property line shall not create an inconvenience to the neighboring property. Drainage. There is a drainage easement for stormwater flow running along the east property line. A stormwater pipe is in place, below the ground surface, that will not be impacted by the encroaching structure. The requested variance shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval. 3 RECOMMENDA TION Based, upon the information contained herein, our office recommends that the Planning Commission make the following motions: Because the proposed variance meets all the variance criteria established by the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council hereby approves the proposed one foot side yard setback variance. 2. Because the proposed variance encroaches into the storm water easement, the request shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. pc: Jack Krongard 4 w LL Q CD LC) ETA r EXHIBIT A