Loading...
4.3 BASR 08-13-2013 Oty Elk Request for Action River To Item Number Board of Adjustment 4.3 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Board of Adjustment August 13, 2013 Zack Carlton,Planning Intern Item Description Reviewed by Consider request by Howard Abel for variance to Jeremy Barnhart, Deputy Director, CODD allow construction of a deck, Case No.V 13-08 Reviewed by Action Requested Approve by motion the variance request from Howard Abel. Background/Discussion Howard Abel,property owner at 21031 Elk Lake Road, has submitted a variance request to allow construction of deck with a zero foot setback. Mr.Abel owns both the subject 3.3 acre parcel and the adjacent 4.7 acre parcel. The adjacent parcel is undeveloped, and the applicant currently has no intention of selling either property or developing the vacant adjacent parcel. Mr.Abel applied for a building permit on June 26, 2013. Staff reviewed the application and determined that the proposed deck would encroach into the side setback. The required setback for the side lot line is 20 feet in the R1a zoning district. After considering all options,including reduction of the deck size, combining the lots, and a variance,Mr. Abel and the city completed a lot combination. On July 8, 2013 staff was informed by Sherburne County that the lot combination could not be processed because one property had a mortgage and the other did not. Mr. Abel contacted his bank to amend the mortgage and was informed the process would be very costly and time consuming. Variance Staff discussed the remaining options with the applicant and agreed that a variance would be the best option. The variance was applied for on July 29, 2013. A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments if it meets the following criteria: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. Property setbacks are meant to maintain district consistency, ensure structures are not placed too close to one another, and provide areas for public utilities to install and access services. The applicant owns the adjacent undeveloped property.Allowing construction of a deck (generally an improvement with limited mass impact) up to the property line,in this case, would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. INATUREI 2. The variance is consistent with the of Elk River comprehensive plan. The variance will not affect future development or plans in the area. 3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance The applicant is expanding his deck by eight feet. The expansion is reasonable and will not adversely affect adjacent property owners. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petition's own action or inaction The house and existing deck were built within the minimum setback making deck expansion impossible without a variance. It appears that the setback calculations were missed during an original building permit review. While an error by the city does not supersede an ordinance,in this case, a variance should be granted because accurate setback information at the time of building permitting may have mitigated the need. 5. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The side of the house where the deck will be located is completely screened from view, and both properties are maintained as one. There is no distinction as to where either property begins or ends. The essential character of the local will not be altered in any way. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the variance as it meets all five requirements. Financial Impact None Attachments • Location Map • Applicants Narrative • Aerials of Property • Deck Plans N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\V\V 13-08 Abel\V 13-08 Abel SR to BOA 13Aug2013.docx pilidipir.rip\ 4z • �1� 7,..,_ ..., tiA 4116...° . 141 00 CL co E C x 0(62 . � ,O a u x o O tra A 1 ---' or ' ' d • oW Q Pli 1 frf: 1 't 1,1 0> O d +, of Q • a 0110 Zpa„ � 10 �® W, . N 7 al N 401111111W la,- Z mom S eA3aNd� goo I .. �wj 13 NOovw , te air , i A , . _ ■011111111 _ /it '4 III To Whom it May Concern; We as property owners of PID 75-117-2110 and PID 75-117-2108 request a variance for 75-117- 2108, to expand the existing residential deck. We request this variance to the property line of 75-117-2110. We own 75-117-2110 outright (no mortgage). This parcel has significant wetlands on it and limited, if any access to County Rd. 1. Additionally,in our opinion there is limited non-wetland space available for building, there is a steep hill rising up to Cty. 1. We have been told by the County that they are not approving private home driveways onto Cty. 1 any longer. My point being that- this parcel is basically not buildable for a residence. When we submitted our application to expand the deck we were told that it would be too close to the property line of the property we own outright. We asked how we could solve this problem and we were told we could combine the 2 parcels into one. We hired a certified surveyor (at considerable expense) and they gave us a legal description of the two properties combined. We submitted the combined legal description to the county and were informed that we could not do this because one parcel (2108) had a mortgage (with the residence) and the other (2110) did not. While we do not understand this completely it has something to do with the property tax. (We escrow taxes for 2108 and pay taxes for 2110 'out of pocket'). We then were told we could contact our mortgage holder and have them combine the parcels,we did this and recently heard from them that it would be a very expensive and time consuming venture. We have submitted pictures of our properties and as you can see -we are unable to see another house especially in the Spring, Summer and Fall. Likewise no one can see our residence. We have postponed dumpster,put our lumber purchases on hold (though paid for), etc. All we wish is to expand our residential deck to the property line of our other (owned) parcel. We feel that this is a justifiable variance and meets all of the criteria as outlined in Variance or Appeal of Zoning Decision Respectfully Submitted, Howard and Linda Abel • f s,.+ t "...A.; �. �' . J , Existing i eck . .x. , �1"la .ib AYfre a - n`A. _t . , .. H h 4 • x +war^,.,. ,vs ,- wail I ,� _ r r ,*,',__7:,:,-,- ', 8 i$P . , .., ,., .. ,_ ,,, , 4 ,.. ...,..., , ,14 lo. Ca • s . titiii, „..4. • C •, y AI e e-: ::-.-;'. ' ' .,, ,,,,,,e, ,,, 44,,,e, '1' Ikayi • '+ .4„ 14E (41(4/ . 1 . • u 1 .. al ›il P AI* . . P." G"' t- V' % V".."I mil: of- r Nig : . Fr , • W 111: c4.418. ' -4 m s T IA r Y 4110. 1 ` i i rC, i - I Cril 44* r.." a • : • t = can 2 41j! ,/ o 4.110 3 7 A. X c, 11 7 4"..410 1 H . r' � t rrif r , . ct. ,Lion. 1 Q . . . , V IV 0 ei al e�m =m.-1== m C. rZ mC0D m0 / t 9 "∎CG.co% 's Q ■ �ZMCfto : lO nOtn m D-a s• = x `. im-©= 1crt'0� S - = ZX �Cr �cs N >ommrnmxm y 46, 1 1�', , --t --+__i cn A 0 ago zoom, ...,zm .a -12 Cry Z7Gmy -iXc)zo mTCa> "1 'cR1i'"i 0 `_ C' - ZWX z > ,>rro ,� m Cb oU) *oa, � cnmm = C7 A mcn-2 - ). 0, A 4 r "DmOo Z OS Z ^ ■ • .7)R P, O r ' ! . r 4 • I- S --v 0 ,a rl ..` , 'I 1 1 ► ' 1 i I ► 11II ;. . ! . //// DT-r----"j---n4■ -T7rILr , , : , . i ' , , i it ' H - i 1 1 1 1 /,// -1 I 1 41 ' I / f/ � I ! H i1--:. . • I r / /// ` �, I � + 13 I c• {gib + r- 7 r4 '\ �r . � N •.v1 • 1 , L.` ti • r 1 \5 V