Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWork SessionCity of Lakeville Planning Department Me morandum To: Planning Commission From: Frank Dempsey, AICP, Associate Planner Date: April 1, 2016 Subject: Packet Material for the April 7, 2016 Planning Commission Work Session Agenda Item: Discussion with John and Tammy Stern Regarding a Proposed Building Setback Variance BACKGROUND John and Tammy Stern, owners of single family home located at 17438 Goodland Court propose to submit a variance application to allow a building addition to the rear of the house which would result in a rear yard setback of 23 feet. A minimum setback of 30 feet is required in the RS- 3, Single Family Residential District. Staff was contacted by the Stern’s builder and design options were discussed as well as the procedure for applying for a variance and the rationale for substantiating practical difficulty as required by state statute and the Zoning Ordinance. Following staff’s discussions with the builder, the Sterns indicated their intention to apply for the variance. Staff suggested that they meet informally with the Planning Commission to discuss options and to determine if the Planning Commission would support their variance application. This memorandum will present the information submitted by the Sterns in addition to staff comments regarding the requisite criteria to establish practical difficulty. EXHIBITS A. Zoning Map and Aerial Photo (2 Pages) B. Property Owner Narrative Addressing Variance Criteria (2 Pages) 2 C. Survey D. Side and Rear View Aerial Photos (3 Pages) E. Sketch Floor Plan F. Neighbor Petition PLANNING ANALYSIS Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth seven criteria that must be considered to determine whether practical difficulties are evident that may warrant the approval of a variance. Practical difficulties means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable matter not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the following criteria must be met: A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan The comprehensive plan guides the property for low density residential development. The property is in Neighborhood Planning District number 3 which has a goal to maintain existing neighborhoods and encourage compatible land use patterns and a high quality residential character is maintained. B. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Single family neighborhoods are designed to provide a minimum amount of open space between front, side and rear yards of buildings. The Stern lot area is approximately 12,632 square feet which meets the minimum requirement of 11,000 square feet. The lot depth as measured from the narrowest portion between front and rear lot lines is approximately 106 feet. The rear yard setback is 30 feet in order to provide a minimum amount of open space between adjacent single family homes. The proposed rear yard setback would be approximately 23 feet. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant. The landowner proposes an addition that will not meet the rear yard setback requirement. The house was constructed in 2000 with a design that resulted in a rear yard setback of approximately 41 feet, in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements. The rear of the house includes a deck and a gazebo, both of which would be removed if the addition is constructed as proposed. There is a significant amount of open space between the house and the garage that could accommodate an addition that would meet setback requirements. The applicant has not submitted information demonstrating alternate designs that could comply with the setback requirements. 3 D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. The only economic consideration identified by the Sterns is a need for additional living space. E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The proposed variance of approximately seven feet would encroach upon the visual rear yard open space of the adjacent single family residential lots. There are no other single family homes in the area that have a rear yard setback variance. F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The Stern’s narrative states a potential four foot variance. Using the “proposed house” survey, the floor plan scales to a seven foot variance resulting in a 23 foot rear yard setback. If a variance is applied for, an updated Certificate of Survey would be required. G. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. Single family residential uses are allowed in the RS-3 District. Staff looks forward to your input and direction on this request. EXHIBIT B Planning Commission: Variance Criteria John and Tammy Stern 17438 Goodland Ct Lakeville, MN 55044 A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance we are asking for is consistent with the preliminary plan that we have drawn up with our contractor and will meet all ordinances of the city B. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this title. It will be consistent with intent of the title C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. As described in our memo, the shape of our property is unique pie shape given the cul de sac that we live in D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. We intend to live in our home for a long time and have a growing family that needs additional space in the kitchen and entry way E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The variance will be exclusively to the backyard and will not directly face our rear neighbors. The character of house will remain largely the same and therefore the character of the neighborhood will remain the same. F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. Given we are asking for only four additional feet past our existing home structure and the action is for additional room as described in (D) G. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this title for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. (Ord. 882, 7-18-2011) This variance is not impacting other neighbor’s land EXH IBIT EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F