4.1. SR 11-23-1998'ity of
iver
FROM:
DATE:
Item # 6.1.
MEMORANDUM
The Mayor and City Council
Stephen Wensman, Planner ~/~ ~
November 23, 1998
SUBJECT:
Request by Rich and Tammy Schmidt
for a Variance, Public Hearing Case
No. V 98-12
Request
Consider a request by the applicant for a five (5) foot variance from the side
yard bUilding setback requirements.
Location
11265 192nd Avenue NW, Elk River (lot 23, block 8, Deerfield third Addition).
Zoning/Land Use
PUD (Planned Unit Development) / MR (Medium Density Residential)
Attachments
· Location map
· Site plan
· Letter from applicant
Oueruiew
The applicants are interested in building a deck 12 foot deep on the side of
their home to utilize an existing sliding glass door. On August 10th the
applicant claims that they approached the City to find out the zoning
requirements for building the deck and were informed by a "woman" that the
side yard setback was 5 feet. The applicant went ahead and hired a surveyor
and a dontractor to design the deck. At the time of application for a building
permit~ the applicants were correctly informed by planning staff that the side
yard setback was 10 feet. The PUD Agreement for Deerfield third Addition
references setbacks in the Rlc district which are 10 feet (Staff, incorrectly
reported that the setbacks had changed on March 18th, 1996). With a ten foot
setback, the proposed deck can only be 7 feet deep which is unacceptable to
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to the Mayor City Council/V 98-12
November 23, 1998
Page 2
the applicants. The applicants believe that the house built in 1986 was
designed in a marmot to accommodate a deck larger than 7 feet deep off the
sliding glass door. They feel that the misinformation led them to spend
money they would never have spent had they known they could only build a 7
foot deep deck.
The surrounding neighbors support the proposed deck and a variance from
the side yard setback.
City Council Meeting. November 16, 1988
The City Council requested the reasons for the March 18, 1996 ordinance
change and the date the applicants purchased their property. When
checking the ordinance amendment dated March 18,1996, staff discovered
the Rlc zoning requirements change, however, it affected only the unsewered
dimensional requirements. In this case, the changed had no effect on the
applicant's property. Furthermore, the applicants purchased their home on
July 23, 1997.
Variance
Staff refers the Board of Adjustments to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk
River Code of Ordinances for the five standards to consider when reviewing a
variance. A variance may be granted only if it meets the following five
conditions:
Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are
peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not
characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same
area.
The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive
the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district
under the terms of this ordinance.
The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the
petitioner's own action or inaction.
The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety
or welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the
property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
s:\planning\stevewen\ccmmo\v9812cc2.doc
Memo to the Mayor City Council/V 98-12
November 23, 1998
Page 3
The applicant believes they should be granted a variance, however, staff finds
the applicants meet one of the five conditions for hardship as follows:
Literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship
beqause the applicants wishes for a larger deck doesn't constitute a
hardship. A deck can still be built. Furthermore, the sliding door is only
a few feet off the ground and the applicant could build steps off the sliding
door to a patio rather than a deck and not have to worry about setbacks. A
ground level patio might offer more privacy as well. Staff cannot account
misinformation given as it is undocumented. Financial hardship in this
case does not constitute a hardship.
The hardship is not caused by special conditions and circumstances which
are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not
characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same
areh. Other properties in the area have the same setbacks and similar
house plans. The applicants can build a deck or a patio, just not to their
designs.
The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not
deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this ordinance. Other property owners have to
conform to the setbacks.
4. The special conditions and circumstances are a consequence of the
petitioner's own action or inaction. The setbacks were public information
at the time the petitioners bought their home. They are still able to
utilize the sliding door with a deck or patio.
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety
or Welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the
property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the
ordinance. The neighbors support the variance however, it may become a
prededent for variances of a similar nature in the area.
Recommendation,
Staff and the Board of Adjustments recommends that the City Council deny
this request for a five (5) foot variance from the side yard setback
requirements based on four of the five criteria for granting a variance.
s:\planning\stevewen\ccmmo\v9812cc2.doc
LOCATION-'
F
~,., "L.~LOCATION
· ~ ~o~.,~r~ :. MAP
Fl i R]ver
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 CASE: V 98-12
Elk River, MN 55330
N
.J
SITE PLANS
L ~
/-2
...-..it
LETTER F' rim APPLICANT