The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-05-20 PACKET 06.1.STAFF REPORT CASE: V13 -013 ITEM: 6.1 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 5/20/13 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 6/19/13 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Jeff and Kerri Kvasager REQUEST: A variance to allow construction of a second level above the attached garage and main floor of a tri -level house to be closer to the north property line than the required 10 -foot side yard setback. SITE DATA LOCATION: 7868 Ivystone Avenue South ZONING: R -3, Single Family Residential CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: NORTH: Residential EAST: Residential SOUTH: Residential WEST: Residential SIZE: Addition = 900 square feet DENSITY: N/A RECOMMENDATION Approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION Planning Staff Contact: John McCool, Senior Planner, 651- 458 -2874, a mccooI(a)cottage- g rove. org G: \CITYFILES \13 CITYFILES \013V Kvasager Addition 2013- 05- 20 \1 -013 Kvasager Addition SR cover 5- 20- 13.docx Planning Staff Report Visage Variance — Side Yard Setback Planning Case No. V13 -013 May 20, 2013 Proposal Jeff and Kerri Kvasager, 7868 Ivystone Avenue South, has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11- 9D -5(A), Minimum Requirements for Properties in the R -3, Single- family Residential District. The applicant proposes to construct a second level above their attached garage and main floor of their tri -level house. The purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of their upper level addition to be less than 10 feet from the north property line. The existing side yard setback between the attached garage and north property line will be the same for the proposed second level addition. 7600 7611 63 7632 7631 fib m ° 7667 7612 653 650 7549 7688 7 7679 LL 7691 7611 767 � � m 785 A � 7704]684 .� 7622 7636 0 n 66 766 667 769 o a m 7705 770 1 1p3 7832 0 0 0 7654 �9 °p � 66 767 0 7696 � � >70 770fi 1 785 1 767 _ 70 769 7698 9) 7685 77 123 111A 11 ?QYl m ao m 7890 7703 7764 7)6 77 13 1. Bg� � ^ m l4 ^ � �2 0 774 a 7721 7156 7739 ' � 1 a1 1 ej � >) 7733 X49 'm 01,9 j1 36 7758 pQ 776 7715 Z W ;5 , n! ? r W 77 O 7767 > 'd .� 3 781032 84 �iy .j 9 771 W6C' 781 780478 N 7775 Q 774 7741 1 > ' 2 846? 7845 782 � 7793 � 7766 v7 ' 1 11111 X1 9 10� 7786 785 7875 7 7774 78 911 1 0E, 100 11 1 1 1 'm 7915 7870 829 777 11 912 1 11� 11106 9 10 190 7919 41 7847 Q 7790 972 n 11 7709 7792 779 7 7798 77 10 9732 m 7794 779 7788 9 11g s� 19,� ) � 780 7935 7978 ^ m 7955 O1 a n m m m m 6 m m e o N 79 7947 0 7860 7876 7963 m7984 $ 9 MICYCnmm 788 m m o m m m n m y 975 wma Q o Q �y 8726 7994 7995 m P $ >'i 9006 ° m m m m m BOTH ST S BOTH ST S o �1 889M 030 m ^$ 02 ro 8889061 2 $ 80 1 ffi N 8873 `,� n 8059 9291 Location Map Planning Considerations Ordinance Criteria The property is zoned R -3, Single - Family Residential District. City Code Title 11 -9D -5, Devel- opment Standards, requires a 10 -foot minimum side yard setback for the living area of the dwelling and a 5 -foot side yard setback for attached garages. The requested variance is to allow the second floor living space above the attached garage to have the same side yard setback as the setback between the applicant's north property line and north side of their attached garage. Planning Staff Report Kvasager Side Yard Setback Variance — Planning Case No. V2013 -013 May 20, 2013 Page 2 of 7 A copy of the applicant's letter (dated April 23, 2013) is attached as Exhibit A, and the appli- cants' response to the ordinance criteria is Exhibit B. The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the zoning ordinance and can impose conditions and safeguards on the variance in cases where it has been demonstrated there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of the regula- tions. In accordance with the City ordinance, a variance may be granted provided that all the following conditions are true: 1. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved cause a particular hardship to the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. There are unique conditions that apply to the structure or land in question that do not apply generally to other structures or land in the same zoning district. 2. The conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship must be caused by this article and not by any person presently having an interest in the parcel of land. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Utilities Private utilities adequately serve this property and other properties in the neighborhood. City water and sanitary sewer services already exist and are adequately sized to accommodate this property. The construction of the second floor addition will not impact or require any relocation of existing utilities. Property Characteristics The house was constructed in the mid- 1970's. It is a multi -level home with an attached two -car garage. There is an accessory structure near the rear property line. The photographs below show the front elevation of the existing house and the side yard along the north side of the attached garage. Planning Staff Report Kvasager Side Yard Setback Variance — Planning Case No. V2013 -013 May 20, 2013 Page 3 of 7 Planning Staff Report Kvasager Side Yard Setback Variance — Planning Case No. V2013 -013 May 20, 2013 Page 4 of 7 The existing house north of the applicant's property is approximately 49 feet from the common boundary line with the applicant's north side property line. The photo below shows the separa- tion between the two structures. Proposed Architecture A building schematic of the proposed upper addition is shown below. This addition will add ap- proximately 960 feet to the existing dwelling. The upper level will have a bathroom, great room, two bedrooms with closet space for each bedroom, and two smaller storage closets. The exist- ing two -car attached garage will continue to be garage space. The roof pitch and shingles on the proposed addition will be similar to the roof pitch and shingles on the existing portion of the house. Siding materials and color will also match the existing sid- ing and color scheme of the current house. A copy of the floor plan (Exhibit D), front building elevation and a 3D graphic illustration are shown below and attached as Exhibit E. Planning Staff Report Kvasager Side Yard Setback Variance — Planning Case No. V2013 -013 May 20, 2013 Page 5 of 7 RJ ---------------- - ----- RUN!: HIM Proposed Addition Floor Plan Front Building Elevation Planning Staff Report Kvasager Side Yard Setback Variance — Planning Case No. V2013 -013 May 20, 2013 Page 6 of 7 Public Hearing Notices Public hearing notices were mailed to 62 property owners who are within 500 feet of the subject property. These notices were mailed on May 8, 2013. The location map shows the 500 -foot buffer around the site. Dale and Eileen Schouveller, 7852 Ivystone (property owner north of the applicant's property) have written a letter (dated April 23, 2013) supporting the Kvasager's proposed addition. A copy of Schouvellers' letter is attached as Exhibit C. Recommendation That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a variance to City Code Title 11- 9D -5(A), Minimum Requirements, to allow an addition to be constructed above the main level and attached garage. The living area on the upper level will have the same side yard setback as the attached garage, but will be less than ten feet as required by City ordin- ance. Approval of this side yard variance is based on the following findings of facts: A. The existing principal structure complies with all the minimum setback requirements for the R -3, Single- family Residential District, which is the zoning district this property is located within. B. Constructing the proposed addition above the main level and attached two -car garage will not reduce the existing side yard setback along the north side of the principal structure. 3 -D Graphic Illustration Planning Staff Report Kvasager Side Yard Setback Variance — Planning Case No. V2013 -013 May 20, 2013 Page 7 of 7 C. North of the applicant's property is the back yard of a neighboring residential dwelling. The distance between the rear wall of the neighbor's house and their rear lot line, which is also the north side property line of 7868 Ivystone Avenue, is approximately 49 feet. D. The proposed addition is consistent with the property's reasonable use, will enhance the property's value, and has general architectural characteristics that are similar to other exist- ing residential dwellings in the neighborhood. E. The requested variance is not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Com- prehensive Plan, but its residential characteristics are consistent with the low density residential land use designation for this property. F. The unique circumstances to the property were not created by the landowner. G. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. H. Granting this variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other landowners in the neighborhood. The proposed residential structure will not impair an ade- quate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. It will not create congestion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. Granting this variance to reduce the ten -foot minimum side yard setback for the living space of a single - family dwelling to be the same side yard setback as the attached garage to allow an ad- dition above the main floor level and attached garage of a tri -level house is subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical, grading, and mechanical) are completed, sub- mitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The exterior siding materials and color scheme proposed for this house must be similar to the materials and colors for the existing structure. Prepared by: John McCool, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit A — Kvasager's Letter dated April 23, 2013 Exhibit B — Response to Ord. Criteria Exhibit C — Schouveller's letter dated April 23, 2013 Exhibit D — Upper Level Floor Plan Exhibit E — Front Building Elevations EXHIBIT A April 23, 2013 Planning Division Staff, Commission Members, and City Council Members: We purchased our 3 bedroom 1 bath home as newlyweds in 1999. Since then we have become a family of five. The more our 3 boys grow, the more our house (and Kerri's level of sanity) shrinks. We would like to add an addition which would add approximately 900 sq ft to the existing 1030 sq ft of above grade gross living area we currently have (according to the home appraisal report done in 2009). The proposed addition would go directly above our I" floor and garage, and would be built to the edges of the current structure, no larger. The addition would be approximately 7 feet from the property line, (which is the same distance our garage is) and the required distance per city ordinance is 10 feet. The house on the neighboring property sits back 50 feet from the property line so the chance of our addition/garage catching fire should they have a fire at their house is extremely minimal. Their house is not side by side with ours as it is located in the nearby cul de sac, so the back of their house faces the side of ours. Incidentally it is the same with the house on the other side of ours, so our house is the only one on our block where the front faces Ivystone Ave. S. We've bad estimates done by 6 licensed contractors, and each of them said the proposed addition would be a perfect fit to our existing home. Building above our existing I" floor is our best option, as building a similar size addition onto the back of our home would likely be more expensive so it wouldn't be financially feasible, not to mention it'd be much less esthetically pleasing and would take up most of our yard, The proposed addition would in no way have any negative impact on any surrounding properties or streets. Updating our home would benefit our neighborhood which is filled with homes built in the 70's, some being fairly outdated in appearance. Our property value would increase as would our taxes, so the city could benefit from this as well. Perhaps others in the same style house as ours (there are a lot of them!) will see our addition which would blend into our home so nicely, and decide to do something similar to update their small homes as well. We do not want to have to move to a larger home, as we adore our yard, our neighbors, and our schools. A bigger home would mean nothing if we had to give those things up. We wouldn't consider moving to a different city, as we love everything about Cottage Grove and we pat ourselves on the back for choosing this wonderful place to raise our family. We want to make this our "forever home ", where today we can raise our boys, and tomorrow have space for them and their families to come and stay. Thank you so much for taking the time to consider our proposal. Jeff and Kerri Kvasager WHIUMS Cottage Comn 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 www.cottag a -q rove.oro Planning Division Telephone: 651-458-2827 Fax: 651.458 -2897 F -Mail: planning(Wcottage -grove org VARIANC APPLI — RESPON TO ORDINANCE CRIT The Planrtlrig ComrGisslop�and Clky Conrlall rrta� avari'anG� from the stnct �p)jllcatlon of the zonlny`ordlnaneetf hey fiG� that y4typllGatfon meets the fipings below Please promde a DETAILED CesQneftQ qll of the follgwing �tndmgs �t 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. Please circle: e No 2, The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Please circle: Ye No 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. Please explain. Trap• �y G %l r e n,� a si:�) le �arn,'/ ham.z, lain t-� 4J!'4 l4�tei— au,,.mrnbd&te V nej 1 "C�fn�y f?iG!? l ?e�S IIYOI�/I �ubSlt�i1.7 /L t/ __� Vhe. OrO 464,-< � �0. ✓ 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. Please identify these circumstances. 7h� 5,`ixe far Oe4 bai'Cf / Au 'ram Me prap.er � intppsSi�le � ,`� �h�r�Vi,S*)� Chv� /z c.K JjDn(�vrne93) mu�� he /orn i rm, prvpe r �i� lid , lr 1e pu rG1�k sF.a/ ! ?� l ?6n /nee a S k <er i Ida's btct if . 5, The conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classifications. Please list the conditions that are unique. - 7 h,s rn s,• /y i as rro 3"Ile 6 s ol� rul hbm - f Dn� �n hisLb /�eK (Z" .Sfrce. -7 . s dm Js tFhe s.�t/es n/ �CGr`S LLr P !t goad d sId irct Arom Uu,rS - t//'e_ 6. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Please circle: es No 7. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Please circle: Y& No B. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Please identify any potential impact the requested variance may have. � / 1/lLrr'li nt e u> ll l7of 11212 luol rhVaa vn Q.C , a -�1 pYa�J (S ylie CLiJe%(ti�q dh aGLJit Ce2 fi '�eapt'v lY Is 4 2pYU e. 5% h'e�7 auaazy :� �ro/� J Economic hardship is; not regarded by the Cogi" as a reason =for Wir, al Neighborhood support or,opposttlon "bout any basis of; fasts, Is not regarded!by the Co, ft a9 reason`for;either apprp`val pr,denlal , Applicant Name: !/a.a" Case April 23, 2013 To whom it may concern: We live at 7852 Ivystone Avenue South, Cottage Grove and we are writing you to let you know that we have discussed the addition plans that the Kvasagers have proposed and we do not have any objections to them. The addition that they are planning will not obstruct our view or cause us to have any concerns. We feel that their improvement will be an asset to our neighborhood because it would give more of a variety of styles for future buyers to choose from. We do not plan on moving, so a new buyer would not need to be a consideration. If this plan is not accepted our neighbors would have to move into a different neighborhood and we do not want that to happen. Since the addition they are proposing is along our property and we do not have any objections to it, we hope that you will accept this proposal. If you have any questions about this issue and need to talk to us our phone number is 651- 707 -7541 or 651 -335 -6086. Thank you for your consideration, Dale and Eileen Schouveller n � T W T m m F �m2c zm9 N 0 Y m 0 Y W N W T t O 0 P A O N O 3 z iP -10 1/9" .11' -10 1/9" - - -- 29' W 11 I I I q J I H I r =1 g I I JI I I I I Iw I g I al Ao � I f VAYliE0 I I I I � N I P� fli m I I R# I m I iP -10 1/9" .11' -10 1/9" - - -- 29' W mom.. -.. �� 11�111 o � _ � � � _ 1 1 - I��I �� -- 1�1 �� iii �� i i �� iii ��, iii le iii iii iii iii iii Iii iii mil