Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-23 PACKET 06.1.STAFF REPORT CASE: V2017-029 ITEM: 6.1 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 10/23/17 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 11/15/17 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Michael Gutterman REQUEST: A variance to front yard setback requirements to allow a front porch to be 21 feet from the front property line when 30 feet is required. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDED LAND USE: 8920 83rd Street Court South R-3, Single Family Residential Low Density Residential LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT NORTH: Low Density Res. EAST: Low Density Res. SOUTH: Low Density Res. WEST: Low Density Res. SIZE: N/A DENSITY: N/A RECOMMENDATION GUIDED Low Density Res. Low Density Res. Low Density Res. Low Density Res. Approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. Cottage COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION Grove 4% ere Pride andprosPerity Meet Planning Staff Contact: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner; 651-458-2825; 1burbank(a_cottage-grove. org Application Accepted:. 9/27/17 60 -Day Review Deadline: 11/25/17 City of Cottage Grove Planning Division a 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Planning Staff Report Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance Planning Case No. V2017-029 October 23, 2017 Proposal Michael Gutterman has filed a variance application to the front yard setback requirements to allow a front porch and patio addition to be 21 feet from the front property line when 30 feet is required at 8920 83rd Street Court South. °I Uj — aamsrs UPPE \JAtit°1lG AVE $ JANLR° 1 '•� ".` .ice_ �- 91STSTS PINETREE _ POND PARK >t: N� Shy .E CT S SITE _ -- Ro STREET CTS - f , Location Map Site Orthophoto Planning Staff Report — V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 2 of 9 The application was received on September 27, 2017. The application was deemed complete on September 27, 2017. The 60 -day application review expires on November 25, 2017. The 120 -day review extension date is January 24, 2018, if exercised. Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use Designation The future land use map in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows this prop- erty to be guided Low Density Residential. The proposed development is consistent with that designation. Zoning This parcel is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-3). The proposed use is consistent with that zoning designation. Planning Considerations Existing Site Conditions The site is a typical residential lot developed in the in the mid 1970's with a single-family split level home and double -car attached garage. ..�, tom. •,'Y..�` �� , y Ate.' �T�,1T •�.-2 � � 1.= ' `� ♦_,-+ it err. A' '�r�• I l.. - _ . L<� LM - -: -- Google Planning Staff Report — V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 3 of 9 EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION scalp: »a^ z V -v, Planning Staff Report — V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Setback Variance Request The required front yard setback for the R-3, Single Family Residential, zoning district is 30 feet from the front property line. The applicant is seeking the front yard variance in order to allow for the addition of a nine -foot wide front porch and patio addition onto the front of the existing home. The existing home is set back 30 feet from the front property line and has a 48 -inch wide eave that projects into the setback boundaries. The new porch would extend 60 inches past the exist- ing eave for a total of nine feet from the front plane of the house. The requested variance is to allow for the new eave edge to be 21 feet from the property line, which would be 34 feet from the back of the curb. Concept Drawing of Porch Addition Planning Staff Report —V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 5 of 9 30'setback -Rope 13' Boulevard Setback Detail One of the purposes of setbacks is a means in which to promote privacy and uniformity in site design of residential properties within neighborhoods. Front yard setback appearances can vary greatly dependent on street designs within a subdivision plat. Curvilinear street relationships to established setbacks will generally be different in appearance than straight streets with houses all lined up parallel to the road. Terrain changes also come into play in subdivision design. The detail below is of the subject property and adjacent homes as they relate to the existing street placement. s SITE g D N Bud StGS 83�J 5t CI S s v t Existing Setback Arrangement for 83rd Street court South Planning Staff Report — V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 6 of 9 Architecture/Construction The proposed porch will be constructed with materials to match the existing residence. Yt Z j,�t-r c �vv,ec' /sola T� a/kj .c `I ©U% `'' 2. rr f; Construction Details Utilities The proposed request does not impact any public utilities. Planning Staff Report — V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 7 of 9 Parking The proposed use would not impact the driveway or other permitted exterior permitted parking areas on the site. Variance Ordinance Criteria With any variance request, the Planning Commission and City Council must look to the zoning ordinance for guidance and direction. Title 11-2-7: Variances, states that: A. Authority And Purpose: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this title. D. Consideration By Planning Commission; Recommendation: Before authorization of any variances, the request therefor shall be referred to the planning commission, and for its recommendation to the city council for the granting of such variance from the strict application of the provisions of this title so as to relieve such practical difficulties to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this title and the comprehensive plan. The planning commission shall recommend such conditions related to the variance, regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed building, structure or use, as it may deem advisable. The planning commission shall make its recom- mendation within sixty (60) days after the request is referred to it, unless the applicant requests, in writing, that an extension of time for review be granted by the planning commission. The planning commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provision of this title, if they find that: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. 5. That 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 classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. 7. That 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. 8. That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent prop- erty, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The applicant's response to the ordinance criteria is attached. The City's Technical Review Committee reviewed the request based on the ordinance criteria and supported the request. Traffic/Access The proposed variance request and subsequent use will not increase traffic in the neighbor- hood. The proposed location of the porch addition will not hamper any sight lines of vehicles utilizing the public roadway or adjacent driveways. Planning Staff Report —V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 8 of 9 Pedestrian Access Not applicable with this application. Surface Water Management The proposed use is below the threshold of additional impervious surface that would require ad- ditional stormwater management improvements. Grant opportunities are available through the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District for residents seeking to voluntarily improve surface water management practices on their sites. Tree Preservation No trees are proposed to be removed as a component of the request. Landscaping Not applicable with this application. Area Charges The payment of the required area charges for the parcel were satisfied with the platting of the property. Park Dedication The payment of the required park dedication requirement for the parcel was satisfied with the platting of the property. Public Hearing Notices The public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin on October 11, 2017, and mailed to the 75 property owners who are within 500 feet of the property on Octo- ber 11, 2017. A component of the application submittal were signed letters of support from the majority of res- idents located on the applicant's street. The detail below highlights the location of the residents that signed the support material. j ��,/"' - `82ND STREET CTS also SITE s je7° Ly �83RD STREET CT �— S ass b \ as LJL a1 Neighboring Support Locations Planning Staff Report — V2017-029 Gutterman Front Porch Setback Variance October 23, 2017 Page 9 of 9 Summary • The existing eave already encroaches four feet into the required setback area. • The structure is open aired and is not proposed to be enclosed. • There are similarly constructed porches in the community that have not caused any detriment to the surrounding land uses. • The existing varied setback arrangements along the applicant's street will aid in the blending and conformance of the addition into the streetscape of the neighborhood. Findings The findings of fact for recommendation of approval that were considered during the review were identified as follows: A. The existing varied front setback arrangements along the applicant's street is unique due to the placement of homes in relation to the existing curvilinear street design and topography. B. Sight lines from the adjacent street and driveways would not be hindered from the proposed use. C. Similarly constructed porches in the community have not posed negative consequences in their neighborhoods. D. The construction of the addition will allow for more front yard activities and neighborhood interaction. Recommendation If the listed findings of fact in favor of granting a variance are found to be accurate and reliable, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council approve the variance application to the front yard setback requirements to allow a front porch and patio addition to be 21 feet from the front property line when 30 feet is required at 8920 83rd Street Court South, subject to the following conditions: 1. No portion of the structure shall be closer than 21 feet to the front property line. 2. All applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical, grading, right-of-way, mechanical, etc.) must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any con- struction activities. 3. The structure shall not be enclosed into habitable space. Prepared by: Attachments: John M Burbank, AICP Applicant's response to the variance ordinance criteria Senior Planner c:oltage Community Development Department Planning Division drove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Telephone: 651-458-2827 %.11 Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Fax: 651-458-2897 www.cottage-grove.org E -Mail: planning (a.cottage-grove. orp VARIANCE APPLICATION — RESPONSE TO ORDINANCE CRITERIA The Planning Commission and City Council may recommend a variance from the strict application of the zoning ordinance, if they find that your application meets the findings below. Please provide a DETAILED response to all of the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. Please cir le: Yes No 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Please cir . Yes No 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. Please explain. The requested 9' front eave will allow for a patio to be constructed. This will be put to use on almost a daily basis which will allow us to create greater synergy with our neighborhood and allow for a "National Night Out" every nice day of the year instead of just a single special event. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. Please identify these circumstances. The current 4' eave is not conducive to a front porch. It is too small to place patio furniture and sit under the eave comfortably. When this residence was constructed, it should have been placed further back on the property for a true front porch, like the houses are being constructed today. 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. This is the only property on the Cul De Sac that has this issue. All others would be able to construct this porch without a variance. 6. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Please cir Yes No 7. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfar us to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Please circl : Yes o 8. 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. There will be a net zero impact to anyone or anything if this is granted. Economic hardship is not regarded by the Courts as a reason for approval. Neighborhood support or opposition, without any basis of facts, is not regarded by the Courts as reason for either approval or denial. Applicant Nam - / Case #: City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 Rd. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83`d St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name (� yt� --!7 �-id e ,,, r Address 6(, 0 -5 -r City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 Rd. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83rd St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name Address City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 RI. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83rd St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name Address City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 RI. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83 d St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name )ei5o Y) -D Address Wo '0J City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 Rd. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83rd St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name Address City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 RI. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83`d St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name ISII ell G Address h-W)VIS �s�/� City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 RI. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83rd St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name rle,' � h +_ l \ \/l\ \ 1 Address ���C, r�r0W 11A.nf `~A0 City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 Rd. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83 d St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name e Address 9`13 So 6-vate City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 RI. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83" St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance. Sincerely, Printed Name Address City of Cottage Grove Planning John MCCool Sr. Planner 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Variance for Setback 892083 Rd. St. Ct. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Jim, August 8, 2017 Our neighbors, Mike and Mary Gutterman would like to construct a front porch at their 8920 83rd St. Ct. Residence. We understand in order to get the building permit, the City of Cottage Grove would need to grant a variance to the set -back requirement. We understand this would mean that their new eave would be 9' wide. We further understand that the front edge of the new eave/patio would be 38' from the curb line. By signing this document, we understand the setback rules and we are comfortable with your decision to grant the variance.