HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-11 Applicant Ltr to OPH Withdrawing ApplicationN
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Tom Melena
FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang I Scott Richards
DATE: September 29, 1999
RE: Oak Park Heights - Pederson Variance
FILE NO: 798.07 - 99.01
BACKGROUND
ORTHWEST ASSOCIA .ED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
Brad Pederson has requested a variance from setback standards in order to construct a
308 square foot garage addition at 14110 Upper 54 Street. The garage would be located
5.9 feet from the west property line. A variance is necessary because a 10 foot setback
is required from interior side property lines.
Attached for reference:
ANALYSIS
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Site Survey
Exhibit C: Garage Plans
Existing Conditions. The applicant is proposing a garage addition on the west side of
the existing attached two -car garage. The subject lot is adjacent to a rear yard to the west.
The western adjacent lot contains a garage that appears to be located on the lot line
adjoining the subject lot. A five -foot wide drainage easement is located along the western
property boundary. The proposed garage will not encroach upon this easement.
Setbacks. The subject property is within the R-1 Single Family Residential District in
which the following setbacks apply:
577 5 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, M I N N E S O T A 5 5 4 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2- 595 -9636 FAX 6 1 2- 595 -9837 E -MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM
Required Existing Proposed
Front Yard 30 ft. 31 ft. Unchanged
Side Yard 1 O ft. West, 19.9 ft. 5.9 ft.
(Interior) East, 24.9 ft. Unchanged
Rear Yard 30 ft. 76 ft. Unchanged
A 4.1 foot side Y and variance from the west property tine is necessary for construction of
the proposed garage addition.
Zoning Ordinance Section 401.04.A.5 states that a variance from the terms of this
Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that:
a. 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.
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
b. Liferal 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.
c. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not result from
the actions of the applicant.
d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that
is denied by this Ordinance to otherlands, structures or buildings in the same district under
the same conditions.
e. The request is not a result of non - conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same
district.
2
f The request is not a use variance.
g
The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended
purpose of the applicant.
h. The request does not create an inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses.
The applicant would prefer to add to the existing garage; however other options for garage
location exist. One option is to relocate the addition to the other side of the house, which
would require the construction of an additional driveway. Another option would be to
redesign the addition to be a freestanding structure in the rear yard. This would require
the relocation of a shed in the side yard and the construction of a longer driveway. If the
applicant proposes two detached structures, a conditional use permit would be required.
pp p ro p
The ro osed location of the garage in the western side yard would not create an
p p
inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses. The proposed addition is located
adjacent to a garage on the neighboring property.
RECOMMENDATION
Our office does not find there to be an undue hardship in this case because the garage
could be located either in the other side yard or in the rear yard without encroaching into
required setback area. If the applicant makes a case for an undue hardship and if the
Plannin g Commission finds that the application meets the criteria for granting a variance,
the Plannin g Commission may recommend approval subject to comments of the Planning
Commission and City staff.
pc: Kris Danielson
Brad Pederson
3
J
Zi '3 T g0
g -o L 7 • (D
CD �?
¢ ro 0 W
a p '
r O A l � • �.
p7, �� N
o gt N ")
-0 0 • o
cn �
� w ,
rr N
0 .-
0
N g
FD
€ 0
r
0
m
z
a
IRO
EXHIBIT A
4
A
940.0
X
944.0
5.5
944.6
W
cn
Co
c ,
944.4
944.
944.1
937.90
5
w
Q
c SHED
942.4
942.5
943.7
5.91
DECK
/
f,
0
/ / /// 42.1/// // /
EXISTING /
DWELLING
#14110 rn
GAR.FLR ELEV =943.2
LOW OPENING =943.7 /
TOP OF BLOCK = 943.5
/11.9
co
y/10.
.
o e
,o
X14.0
PROPOSED
ADDITION\
N
f�3
5.9
8.2
b42.7
943.5
11 '943.0
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT j
ti
5 /
� '942.6
/
/ o
X 938.6
942.0 942
942.3.
942.3
943.2
'943.0
/
942.9
942.8
l.J
I 9
10
;941.8
9
� - -" T ~
24.9 ,
l
l
24.8
942 8
J
t.\
� E
5
5
z
Lt..;
z
Q
0
5
935.0 RETAINING WALL 935.2
N 88'57'03 ` 35.0 938.1
----86.83 938.2
937.9
939.9
1 0
U1 co
-
1 =
m
941.0
940.1
939.0
' f /r
940.3
EXISTING
/ DWELLING
GAR.FLR ELEV. 943.2
/ TOP OF BLOCK = 943.5
939.1
BENCHMARK
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT= =942.62
EXHIBIT B
z S (r
•
r j Q
n
i
I"
l%
7„-
EXHIBIT C