HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-05 City Administrator Memo to CC Re Garage Variance Request Enclosure 8
MEMO
Date: June 5, 1997
To: Mayor & Council
From: Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Re: Garage Variance Request from James Vidana, 14387 Upper
56th Street North
James Vidana is requesting a variance of 19.65 feet from the
front yard setback in order to install a 22' x 20' garage in the
front of his house. Vidana's property is located within a R -1,
Single Family Residential District, which requires a 30 foot
front yard setback.
I have attached a copy of Mr. Vidana's letter which states the
reasons why he is making this request for a variance. The letter
states that Vidana's former garage was remodeled into a family
room in 1991 under the assumption that he could build a new
garage in front of it. I have also attached a map showing the
location of the Vidana property and an excerpt of an appraisal
noting the effects of the lack of a garage.
I have also attached a copy of Mr. Vidana's survey, which shows
that if his proposed garage is constructed that there would be
10.35 feet between the front of the garage and his front property
line. Building Inspector Jim Butler has measured the distance
from the front of his home to the street curb and it is 47 feet
on the short dimension and 49 feet on the long dimension. If
Vidana's request is granted he will have approximately 25 feet
(along the shortest dimension) from the edge of his new garage to
the edge of the street curb. This is sufficient space to park a
car.
Analysis: According to the City Zoning Ordinance, a request for
variance cannot 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 are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district.
A. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic
or water conditions or, 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 the result of lot size or
building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable
parcel.
There are no special conditions, circumstances, or undue hardship
that exist in this case.
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.
Literal interpretation of the Ordinance does prevent Mr. Vidana
from having a garage on his lot.
3. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue
hardship do not result from the actions of the applicant.
It is the applicants actions which have caused his need for a
variance. Mr. Vidana lacks space for a garage because he
remodeled his existing garage into a family room. We can never
know whether the former building official told Mr. Vidana that he
absolutely had the right to attach a new garage or whether he
told him that he needed a 30 foot setback and Mr. Vidana assumed
the setback was from the curb and not the property line.
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.
Granting this variance will confer a special privilege upon the
applicant and may set a precedent for similar requests.
5. The request is not a result of non - conforming lands,
structures, or buildings in the same district.
The request is not a result of non - conforming lands, structures,
or buildings in the same district. As the property and house
currently exist all setback requirements are met.
6. The request is not a use variance.
The proposed garage is a permitted use in the R -1 Zoning
District and therefore 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 is requested is the minimum necessary to build
a garage, as a 22x20 garage is about the smallest size
garage being built today for a single family home.
8. The request does not create an inconvenience to neighborhood
properties and use.
The proposed garage should not create an inconvenience in
Mr. Vidana's neighborhood.
Recommendation: I recommend the variance request be denied due
to lack of sufficient hardship. If Mr. Vidana wanted a garage he
could remodel his family room back into a garage, though that
obviously would be an unpleasant experience.
A Motion to deny the variance would be:
"I move that the variance request be denied because no special
conditions exist that prove undue hardship."
A Motion to approve would be:
"I move that the variance be approved due to the hardship of
lacking a garage.
May 8, 1997
City of Oak Park Heights :
I am requesting a variance which would allow me to build a 22x20 garage at the address of
14387 Upper 56th Street North ( Lot 7; Block 2, Swager Brothers 6th Addition ). In 1991, I
remodeled my garage into a family room. This was done with the understanding that in the
future I would be able to attach a new garage onto the front of my house. Mick Kaehler
who was the Oak Park Heights Zoning & Building Official at the time assured me that I
would have no problems. The only requirements I had, were that I was to meet a 30 foot
setback from the street. I met that criteria by being 52 feet from the street; therefore I met
the established 30 foot setback with 22 feet to spare.
I have recently tried to get a building permit, however I was told that the City of Oak Park
Heights has the right of way to the first 15 feet from the curb. If this is indeed the case I
have no room for my garage. Had I been told of this back in 1991, I would have never built
my family room. I believe a garage is a necessity and possibly even a city ordinance. I also
believe that if I were to ever sell my home it would definitely be a deterrent to a
prospective buyer if I had no garage.
Thank you,
James R. Vidana
)0 \ i } -- .�. _.��__... _ ! ° f I 58TH .n ST N N .v_., ,• 74 ' . '� � `rr • 1
ut. D Y.+ .-z _ -.
Nll • a3'f< t
�/ 0/'1 25. 3
\ ' Q Li it M PO WER ( r E.c mow- ."...-.4.- .O i ? 5,,,,,...e., 7 T..e.r4 • o , 5 F , . }:F 3 o �
NB9•26'3o 2" 386. 35
q�Z 7 4 << , 4". 34 , r ^ a ; <1 T - - A Z !s - ?S 93 1� 9� a f - - -� —�5 1 . �T
5 d rA .V
2 V 2I RE � _ 07 ti J6 15 !4 13 l2 ii
B !H3 8;93 9/F3 v, �; ' /.•9 �, r R, �• �~ • J2 I., o i y c3 64
de.)- 6. °3eis3 - ' {� - 5-4,7 °` ST I , •
:,
<91b � ac old 57TH 5 G All
a 9, ,7 .• _' '• P,.- B, :• J .* ---1-7.4 4S I /• )9 A74. 464. as ,534 C7 ;7 z 433 ; qt ;:• '
.. - - 17A,,, ■ . r w
6 • .� !Q ` O 9 e
~ � c '� c.-,.. ` � ` y � - p ` C 4 ^� 3 1 2 _ - � , • ^+
j? , r"7 / 2 3 �: g - , o s R 'c' •- Y yl i 3 s . ' Pa .
1- Z L. S6 i! 4, /Y 9"49N s l3 JJ L32 3 2 'S. 12 i 9,' 8s
• '.r .i eS..5 ... . v?T'4d°l9 = w L I a t + ^ a 1
L 15 • 4 : � 3 1 e, y f e! 7 ' -• LL1 I 10 ,' 9 i
r 8 7 6 t d - i I, w h �( 7 i p `
/I , � =, 9 z WAFER;! Bi?0, e, y • , . -' _, �-' 1 :1,
`(/ 1" - 10 I S -2-"--?,_ ,. i ^ i 2 i 2 . ' • , - , 2 i , 3 F. d.+N S< I 11 1 IX P v Q = � ? • _.:c "\-- UPPER
H ST N. 9.
71. I1 56T r 3 ' Z s ti _ 1 , ��
(�� v + s i sr e1 > i .-1 18 � � a 75 1 , Y S .�, A , •
J 12 d , 13 -• 14 .. 15 ~ 16 1? '1 _ 19 O V A i 4 y „a'. & ' �'. ' - ��� e �- y ' - 7 6 1 i
/. p 1.. C it !S 1 1 1 i ; .� ^, .' xi . • � "v. O•' ^ - � ^ , 1 ` _
- .S Y B,: ° e do 31 di �- \ J" I k 5
�Gd � i '� 'c , I
7 ! 2 " 5 3 1 � a i e - : ..1.
a o0 8 , \ � J 5 s , Q \ av \ '' t \ ` O , v vs 'r` I
�, 710 5 2 , � � . a' 1 55TH
-4 ; 9 ° „ . — r _N \ ( -. ,.., .-.t.s: it 1--/
0 .21 3 3 n2.n <y ! ' � c ao so ti ,[) - •
60 ,JS.19 -! D � a W _
� �/ ti SWA ER a / T J I + . G ;al - • , 4 4, .. N, la: _ a w .' 4 7 • O one 02 IIV 2 �:.. m , 3 • NO ' 80 • ♦ sc / .i0 • 5A - - ^. \ V
�I
w w w -
* 5
0 0 ti • 't, ,P ` .� ?T9 •00 ...1 .13,) :J, , /, _ c ' 5
o w �c34 /� 1� i
,OD p 40.11 _5511 (u
I
�D N' Rs I a 8 • 9 •:F 7.5.9i a .. 7 4 '
55TH #G ST. 2Y /J ,
,,,.i.:, ' 'v
i t C
•
/24.E so l ,. Bu .4 • • , I. >^ 5 •Y 3�, 2 I r �•
I ti � r.�� a h y 4 oN� e .O 2.
o ti w it • t • •` 1):.!, •
14 w', ~
1 !t _ L ' ,! 1 t,� _. • _ Lr` / # !/ 7 ; , �
,25 59 a 10 M , ., 75 . - ^ ! - a+ 45 h
.. .!`J -66 T Bo. f7 , - •• 307 . rl +� CEN. OF
8 ,p. 9J
' 16 10 1 -9 05 SEC. 4
Al
File No. Bayport Bank
The rear yard is fenced.The basement is "extensively" finished.Newly completed. Quality
materials and workmanship.Family room and a bedroom with a legal egress window.Note also
that there is a 3/4 bath and hot tub room in the basement.The main floor also reflects updating
along with a
NEW" 20'x 22' family room (no basement under this new addition).The family room has two
skylights with french door access to the rear yard. This family room used to be the 2 car
attached garage. In 1991 -92 it was converted to its present family room utility. There is at
C present though no garage. The lack of a garage could be a "marketing" deterrent to its re -sale
capability. However from the family room (front of the house) to the street measures 52'.
What this means is that a garage could be added and still meet the 30' set back (from street)
criteria as is presently required by zoning.One would simply have to construct a 20'x 20'
garage (attached and in front of where the original garage was) in order to within the setback
guidelines, as per Mick Kaehler "Oak Park Heights Zoning & Building Official".
DEPRECIATION:
Subject suffers from normal physical depreciation however with extensive updates and its new
family room addition it reflects an effective age of (7) years. Its actual age is (15) years.The
floor plan is functional.There are no apparent adverse neigthborhood conditions or negative
encroachments that would inhibit subjects re -sale capability or warrant an external
obsolescence adjustment. However due to the lack of a garage a -5% "functional
*obsolescence" is reflected. It is acknowledged that there is room for a garage should one need
to be added, however from a marketing standpoint the lack of a garage in a
neighborhood /market where 99% of the homes have a garage must be recognized as a
detterent.
COMMENTS ON SALES COMPARISON:
All (3) of the above comparables are considered to be in subject's market area and adjust
accordingly. Every effort was made to use and reflect comparable sales as close -in proximity
to the subject as possible. Comparables that would necessitate the most minimal in gross and
net adjustments. Subjects -2% functional obsolescence (lack of garage) along with adjustment
for lack of garage vs comparables that did have a garage necessitated larger gross adjustments
than would normally be desired. Note that the impact on the market (subjects lack of garage)
reflects a greater negative than just the cost to construct a garage. The comparables as are
reflected herein are the best available.Finally note that evry effort was also made to use
comparable "rambler" style sales that had "NO" garage. This appraiser went as far back as mid
1991 and could not find any "garageless" house sales. The adjustments made for lack of garage
and the subsequent -2% functional obsolescence are deemed realistic.
COMPARABLE # 1
This comparable is located directly across the street from the subject but is situated on a cul -de
-sac site thus the site adjustment. This was an FHA assumption and closed in November 5th
1992. The ages are similar however subjects "effective age" of (7) years warrants an
adjustment. There is a condition adjustment made as well. Subjects entire interior updated but
also a newly finished family room addition and newly finished basement as well. The size
differential was minimal. Note that this comparable reflected "NO" basement finish. It did
have a 2 car garage that adjusted to subjects lack of a garage, it also warranted an adjustment
to subjects -2% functional obsolescence. The comparable like the subject also had central -air.
Adjusted for its brick fireplace,subject had no fireplace.
The larger than normal 39% gross adjustment necessitated by subjects lack of garage along
with its consequent -2% functional obsolescence.
COMPARABLE # 2
This comparable reflected a superior lot adjustment, not just its larger size but its street
locale,etc is superior. The age differential was not as large as it would appear. Like subject
this comparable had been "extensively" updated,new siding and a new roof (subject has its
original 15 year old roof),Its interior was all re -done as well. Newer basement finish. Note the
minimal house size differential.Like comparable #1 this sale adjusted to subjects lack of a
garage and its subsequent -2% functional obsolescence. Its decking and fenced yard /shed
adjusted to the subjects patio only and fenced yard.
CFRTIFICATN, OF SURV1 -I ,Y
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING P.A.
1296 Hudson Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 L
X - i ' 1 ' -f -- -1c) _� .. 7
Survey Made For: Jim Vidana r i 4, ek .1,/ , . ACI. 10
14387 Upper 56th Street North 416 s l.l); s h I-s - Thrtt
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 y- Psr
Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 2, SWAGER BROS. 6th ADDITION (- ri r1.1 e l
according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the County Recorder,
Washington County, Minnesota
ti
o
r 60 ..... 0 4$ /� l V ? C \ •
..... ,.....
c-, �, �' � ° ° . ry � SWAGER \
6
<0 0 . ..<0 t. , .°,/ ct.. s\\ . 6, (-1'. \
0
o .., \
,
% s i
/ s�
/
0 AP PEARS TO ENCROACH
I "0.41. FEET ONTO LO 8
A FENCE / N �c ' G ��
`\ of p'
��
�p'� 6th 61 ADDIT c o e`
rn � , 9, of
O •
/
\Z .
I certify that this survey, plan or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervisi
NOTES and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor
under the f the State of Minnesota.
O Denotes 1/2 Inch by 14 inch Iron pipe
mounment set, marked with a plastic cap I ws >d ��_ S = /�'`�
Inscribed 23300 /
• Denotes Iron pipe monument found, size L • r- 04'd-a s /2-17
and markings as Indicated,
SCALE Richard C. Person Date
1 Inch - 90 tt. Registered Land Surveyor
DRAWING NO. B2 106 - 97
Minnesota Registration No. 23300