Variance-Chapel View, Inc.• January 26, 1984
Case No: 84 -03
Applicant: Chapel View, Inc.
s
Location: 615 Minnetonka Mills Road
Request: Variance from ordinance requirements for minimum dwelling floor
. area, open space ratio and rear yard setback.
STAFF FINDINGS & COMMENTS: Kerrigan
1. The proposed building will have 12 of the 56 units which do not meet dwelli.ng
floor area requirements of the ordinance. Nine efficiency units range from
415 -450 sq. ft. in area, while the ordinance requires 520 sq. ft. Three one
bedroom units have 528 sq. ft., the ordinance requires 600 sq. ft. A similar
variance was requested and granted for Dow Towers when it was constructed
because of its elderly occupancy. If granted, the units would still not exceed
minimum floor area requirements of the State Building Code.
2. The Zoning Ordinance requires that any development in an R -4 District have a
1:1 open space to improved surface ratio. The applicant states the property
with the addition will have a land surface area of approximately 105,000 sq. ft.
and an open space area of 66,559 sq. ft. which is a 1.57:1 open space ratio.
Thus a variance from this requirement is necessary.
3. The structure as proposed is located approximately one foot from its north .
property line at its most northeast corner and eleven feet from its north
property line at its most northwest corner. As the north lot line is the
rear yard, the ordinance requires 25 feet or 2 the height whichever is greater
which in this situation would be 25 feet. The proposed building would align
approximately with the north wall of existing building which was granted a
similar variance when constructed because of the taper of the north /south
property lines.
•
• FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when
the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance would cause.an undue hard
ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property.
Hardship to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only in unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Hardship A.
•
Explain why
strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship:
Variance 1:
Size of proposed units meet the needs and requirements as they
re a e to the elderiy. Larger units would urt her iminish open
green space and increase hard surface to building adding more water
run-Ott to storm sewer.
Variance 2:
Existing conditions are 1.2:1 ratio. Concept review noted.no major
concern for this. Needs lor housing cannot be met iF proposed 1.57:1
Conditi6dfiHnce 3:
ratio not recognized.
Proposed addition is adjacent to driveway shared by Gethsemane and
Mizpah churches. Proposed building does not encroach on structures.
What are the
special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic
conditions,
etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply
generally to other properties in the district?
Variance 1:
Property relates directly to the use of the. elderly.
Variance 2:
Several properties combined to share parking as "campus" effect.
Maitionai par King spaces not required by the city are un erground
for convenience thereby eliminating further added hard surface area.
Variance J:
Unapel View, Gethsamane & Mizpah properties share parking and, in
effect, property where parking exits. Setback of proposed addition.
List of Homeowners
has no effect on the encroachment of other neighboring structures.
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list
of names and addresses of neightobrs contacted.
(SEE ATTACHED SHEET)
•