Loading...
7.7. SR 03-20-1995~ ~t ~Ik Ri _.__ __ ITEM 7.7. MEMORANDUM ~~~ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary Schmitz, Planning Assistant ~~ DATE: March 20, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request By Don Schumacher Public Hearing Case No. V95-1 Request Mr. Schumacher is requesting an eight (8) foot front yard setback variance request from the Manor Place right-of--way to accommodate a ten (10) foot addition to the south side of his home. Location 212 Norfolk Avenue, northeast corner of the intersection of Norfolk Avenue • and Manor Place. Zoning/Land Use R1c (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential). Attachments February 28, 1995 memo to the Planning Commission Background Mr. Schumacher is requesting an eight (8) foot front yard setback variance from Manor Place to put a ten (10) foot addition on the south side of the existing 3-season porch and convert it to a year-round family room. The parcel measures 120 feet by 187 feet (1/2 acre in size). The home was built in 1929 and has acolonial-style architecture. The subject parcel is a corner lot which must meet a thirty (30) foot setback from the front property line along Place and Norfolk Avenue. The home which faces on Norfolk Avenue is set back fifty-four (54) feet from the front property line along Norfolk Avenue and thirty-two (32) feet from the front property line along Manor Place. • 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 The topography of the site falls seven (7) feet from the northwest corner to the south lot line along Manor Place. A 10' foot variance would mean that the home would be located 22' feet from the front property line along Manor Place. The attached memo to the Planning Commission explains the Variance Request in detail. Planning Commission Meeting At the February 28, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission concured with staffs findings and recommended approval of the (8) foot front yard setback variance from the front property line along Manor Place. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the eight (8) foot front yard setback variance from Manor Place based on the following findings: 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance wou],d cause undue hardship by the fact that applying the existing setback standards would require the addition to be built elsewhere which would jeopardize the unique colonial architecture associated with the house. • 2. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same neighborhood due to the fact that a precedent has been established in this neighborhood for non conforming setbacks. Therefore, this proposal would not be out of character for the neighborhood. 3. The existing home was constructed in 1929 when different setback standards, if any, applied. The applicant had no control over where the existing home was located. It is difficult to retrofit a home built in 1929 to meet the existing setback standards. 4. The variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and is keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. s:council:v95-1 ~~ ~` •~ity of ,~~ .ilk • River Request ITEM N0. 5.2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Schmitz, Planning Assistant DATE: February 28, 1995 SUBJECT:. Variance Request by Don Schumacher, Public Hearing Case No. V 95-1 Mr. Schumacher is requesting an eight. (8) foot front yard setback variance request from the Manor Place right-of--way to accommodate a ten (10) foot addition to the south side of his home. Location 212 Norfolk Avenue, northeast corner of the intersection of 1`~orfolk Avenue and Manor Place. Zoning/Land ZTse Rlc (Single Family Residential) l MR (Medium Density Residential). Attachments Location Map • Zoning Map. • Site Plan • Letter from the Applicant. Background Mr. Schumacher is requesting an eight (8) foot front yard setback variance from Manor Place to put a ten (10) foot addition on the south side of .the existing 3-season porch and convert it to a year-round family room. The parcel measures 120. feet by 187 feet .(112 acre in size). The home was built in 1929 and has acolonial-style architecture. The subject parcel is a corner lot which must meet a thirty (30) foot setback from the front property line along 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to Planning Commission Page 2 February 27, 1995 both Manor Place and Norfolk Avenue. The home which faces on Norfolk Avenue is set back fifty-four (54) feet from the front property line along Norfolk Avenue .and thirty-two (32) feet from the front property line along Manor Place. The topography of the site falls seven (7) feet from the northwest corner to the south lot line along Manor Place. A 10' foot variance would mean that the home would be located 22' feet from the front property line along Manor Place. Existing Neighborhood .Most of the .homes in this immediate area were constructed from the 1920's through the 1940's. There are very few records from this time period showing when these homes were constructed. Through the aid of aerial photographs, it .appears that several of the homes were constructed very close to the side property lines. In fact, the neighboring home to the north of the subject site appears to be located approximately five (5) feet from the subject site's north property line. Therefore, it appears that some precedent for .decreased side setbacks has been established in this older neighborhood. However, it does appear that most of the homes meet the existing front yard setback requirements from Norfolk Avenue. The applicant's parcel is a corner lot which is required to meet the front yard setback on both frontages which leaves fewer options for the applicant. Analysis Staff refers the Planning Commission to Section 900.40 in the City of Elk River Code of Ordinance for the five standards to consider when reviewing a variance. Staff also refers the Commission to Mr. Schumaeher's letter addressing the issues and -five standards. Staff feels that there are adequate findings to grant the eight (8) foot front yard setback variance. The applicant and staff discussed several different options for an addition which would not need a variance, however, as noted in the applicant's letter, .these locations did not work for a variety of reasons, namely that the colonial style architecture would be jeopardized with a poorly placed addition. There is also precedence established in this older neighborhood where several structures are non-conforming in terms of existing. setback standards. Therefore, the proposed setbacks. would not be out of character with the general area. Although alternative sites exist for placing the family room addition without the need for a variance, it would jeopardize the- unique colonial architecture associated with this home. Mr. Schumacher's home was constructed before any of the current setback standards were in place and it is extremely difficult to modify his home without jeopardizing the architecture and meet all the current setbacks. The topography and location of the existing c;planning:pc:v95-1 Memo to Planning Commission February 27, 1995 Page 3 driveway would also make it very difficult to add a family room addition in other locations. It should be noted that it is important for the City to encourage improvements in older sections of the City to ensure that the vitality of these neighborhoods remains strong. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the eight (8) foot front yard setback variance from Manor Place based_on the following. findings:. L .Literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship by :the fact that applying the existing setback standards would require the addition to be built elsewhere which would jeopardize the unique colonial architecture associated with the house. 2. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in .the same neighborhood due to the fact that a precedent has been established in this neighborhood for non conforming setbacks. Therefore, this proposal would not be out of character for the neighborhood. 3. The existing home was constructed in 1929 when different setback standards, if any, applied. The applicant had no control over where the existing home was located. It is difficult to retrofit a home built in 1929 to meet the existing setback standards. 4. The variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and is keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. c:planning:pc:v95-1 t~. .c 75-482-0023 ~~~. 0 / ~ !~ ~ 73-402-0024 oeo. P~~ f c 22.fY ~ ~~ 75-40 ~~ ("~ O ~ 230, 7p• V Z SU801VtSi0N ~~ ~1 2 g 75-402 ~ ~ 3~Q~• g 7$-402• 75-402-0021 5-I ~~ ~'3-6414 73-414- ~tST 7S-g4/4 LOCATION SITE MAP R!ti 7S F .1 ~~ ~~ ~. ~:ry or ~; ~ __ v 95-oi O. Box 4,0 ?~0~.. Orera far?;•;~ay • ~:~ R;ve~, ViV ~r~0 • i6?=~ ~,,?-7~"0 s ~~ ' fb4~ ! ~, - - ~a , r ~ s Y ~, ' 1 `~~' Ulf _ - ~ ~- 2b T ., ~~. '- VANpEH BERC[. ! EtX RIVt,R ARCAF~.~~7 .. ' ~ •1 1 MOM SClgO{, ~~(~y ~ ~ . di. 111G1~ SC-i001 ...~ C ._. CtCY[11T1Utl ^ AOMM. PAIMEF ~ - _ - SGtgO~ ELEV. SCM '~ SCMOO.T STREET 4 i I ~ t'1 h G ,. Z PARK /'1. } Z .~; - .:? 1~ ,r •~ ,:t 4 ,` ~ h ~, a i ~ i „ .n: nc, ...... ......'.. tr I ~ 7 J .•......~ ......... .... ~~~. •.. MANOR 2A ~• ....~.... ~~ ~ ..•.-.•.....~.• ................... •.~-• PLAtF .'Jt'1• :f, .... • .~~ t6V i ~ ~ ! A ~ 2 ...... .. . ' .......... ..... ~ . F~'4 ...~ M ... ...........' ~ ' .. ~ .a: .. 4\ ...... ........ ~ ...... - 4 ~' 1'r1 .. ~ ''~ ` r- 1 .' .........~ .~.•.•.-.~.~.~.~.• .~ L~3CATION , ~. ~. ..... .. ... ........... ....... .... ~ of ,'S b ~'~~ ZONING MAP • ~ ,~ City~7toi a iii` case V 95.01 Raver _ -~ . P.O. Box X90 • 1306 Orono Par'.. x2y • Eck Rive: , ~Y U U ,. ~- t _ o _ .. .. ~~ :Ia '~-- ,. .. . -- :. :, ;~ ~ 4 4 ~~ a~ ~ ~, • 1 a s: ~ C v - --"'f~-'~~"-4 ' xis - --,-r,- - ~.' U' v .\ . ..~--1 . 4i i ~ f ~ t ~` a ~, ---- ~ ._ ._._ I~.~t <r,/•. o. ,eat ~. - -_~i _ - a~ ~~ l V(t ~~ /f~JJ~~ i .. ,, .. a~. Off. •.. t. ~4~ ' :. L / V ~ ~ i ~:1 ~Ntl ....~ {t erl ~Iji t - ~ t~~ a ~ lnT ~ .i ~ ~ i t t , ` = ~ ~ ~.w ~ W ~ C \ 4 ~` , t i ~ ____ _._ __ _ _ . _ ~ .___s _ _-____ ~ - - --- ... --- ----~ - -- -;t t ~ ` s i \\\ \\ \ - - -=~. '--~F' - ^~- ~ 1 i ~ i I t \~ j \ ~~~ ., a - ' ; • ' \ _ _' ---- - ,. ~ ,. t r .!: i.~tis. ,a„ ~ I , i -_ ~ ~'® O'---T- _E __ ~.-_._-.- r- a ~~._, . ~ V A ;~~. V ~ - ~ ~ J i o W O ~ S~ H ~ W y ti .rte-,.'-s.:.~=.i i7"TT' ~~ January 30, 1995 Attn:. Gary Schmitz City of Elk River P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Variance Application 212 Norfolk Ave. Dear Gary: Enclosed are the following. 1. Variance Application 2. Application Fee 3. Agreement to Pay Costs 4. List of Adjoining Progeny Owners 5, Plat Map I did leave a Site Plan with you last week. If additional deta3 is needed, please let me know. The proposal. is to add 10 feet to the south side of the existing three season porch and convert it to a year round family room. We offer the following in support of our application. In order to add a main floor family room of sufficient size, we have no choice but to expand the existing floor plan. The obvious expansion is on the side to the south. Not only for the southern exposure, but also to insure that the addition can be aesthetically consistent with the existing. colonial style. An expansion to the front or back simply would. not be compatible with that style. And an expansion to the north is not possible because there is no room to the north. We did consider other configurations to the proposed expansion. One possibility was to expand the three season space across the entire south .side of the house. That approach would. close off the only south window in our living room. The pitched roof would also then close off the window in the second floor bathroom. That window is located in the center of the fireplace chimney and restricts our options. To expand to the east beyond the east line of_the house presents problems. One is that it .would not be in keeping with the colonial style.. Also., there is a 3 to 4 foot drop to the driveway to the east. r~ • -2- Our house is located on a .corner lot. It fronts on Norfolk Avenue and is set back 52 feet from the front. The proposed .addition is toward the side street, Manor Place, where the current setback is 32 feet. Even with the addi ion, the side street setback would still be 22 feet. We believe that the side setback is the appropriate standard. in this case because the house clearly fronts on Norfolk Avenue. .There are several examples of side setbacks in our neighborhood which are less than the current 10 foot requirement.. Our own garage and Palm's house to the north are less than 5 feet from the side. These .houses were all located and built long before the current setback requirements were established. Our lot is 120 feet on Norfolk Avenue and 187 feet on Manor Place. It is approximately a half acre and is the largest lot on our block. See the enclosed plat map. The house with the proposed addition is sti-11 well. within the capacity of the .lot. Our house is a classic colonial built in .1929 on a large corner lot in a unique-area of Elk River. Amain floor family room is generally a requirement of buyers of our size house in today's market. The addition of a main floor family room in keeping with the colonial style will only add value to our neighborhood, We respectfully request approval of the proposed variance. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Yours very truly, ~`~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~`'•w` ~- ~..M.. n~C Donald A. Schumacher •