7.1. SR 11-21-2016 EOty1� ,.,�� Request for Action
River
To Item Number
Mayor and City Council 7.1
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Public Hearin s November 21, 2016 Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner
Item Description Reviewed by
Variance, Side Yard Setback,Michael& Rosie Zack Carlton,Planning Manager
Reger— 19538 Albany Street NW Reviewed by
Cal Portner, City Administrator
Action Requested
Deny,by motion, the side yard setback variance for the following reasons:
1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is not met.
3. The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property as there are options for constructing a
deck that meet ordinance requirements.
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to the petitioner's own action.
5. The essential character of the locality would be altered.
Background/Discussion
Case No. V 16-13
The property is located at 19538 Albany Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (R1-c) which
includes the following setbacks:
Front: 30 feet
Side: 10 feet (they are requesting a reduced setback to approximately 6 feet)
Garage: 5 feet
Rear: 20 feet
The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a 12'x 16' deck on the northwest corner of their home.
When the house was built in 2015 the applicant indicated they were new to the home building process
and were not given clear and concise information from their builder and were not aware of the required
setbacks.
The initial design included a deck on the west side,which would have met ordinance. Their desire for
more windows on the west side resulted in a design change with the deck door in its current location.
Applicable Regulation
Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that the variance satisfies all five of the criteria
described below. The variance:
1. Is in has-pony Pith the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and
The purpose and intent of side yard setbacks is to keep structures reasonably separated. A 10 foot side
yard setback on both properties ensures 20 feet between living spaces. This setback is intended to
POWERED 6T
A IR
improve privacy in a setting where homes are close together. The applicant requests to reduce their
setback by almost one half. While the applicant is comfortable with the reduced distance between living
spaces, the neighboring property is not yet occupied and an elevated encroachment into the setback will
impact the use of their property. The purpose and intent of the setback ordinance is not met.
2. Is consistent Pith the City of Elk Diver comprehensive plan.
The property is guided for residential uses and decks are allowed in residential districts. It is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes there are practical difficulties in complying with
the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties means that:
3. The petitionerproposes to use the properly in a reasonable manner notpeimitted by the honing ordinance;
Although decks are permitted on residentially-zoned properties and the desire to build a deck is
reasonable, the desire to deviate from the setbacks while other compliant options are available is not
reasonable. Encroachment of a living space into the buffer area between homes is also not reasonable as
it will impact the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property.
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not a consequence of the petition's
on)n action or inaction;and
The applicants indicated they are new to the home-building process,were not given clear and concise
information from their builder, and were not aware of the required setbacks. The initial design had a
deck on the west side of the house which would have met ordinance. Their desire for more windows on
the west side changed the design. The opportunity remains to have a deck on the west side with minimal
impact to windows and remain in compliance with all setback requirements exists.
5. The variance, ifgranted, Pill not alter the essential character of the locality.
The Board of Adjustments stated the character of the locale would be altered.
Board of Adjustments
No one spoke for or against the variance request.
The Board of Adjustments denied the request at their October 25, 2016, meeting, citing the four reasons
outline in the Action Requested above.
Decisions by the Board of Adjustments to deny a variance are not final and are automatically appealed for
review by the City Council.
Financial Impact
None
Attachments
■ Location Map
■ Applicants Narrative
■ Site Plan
■ Plans
■ Staff Option
N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\11-21-2016\Final\x7.1 sr.docx
■ Email from Rosie Menth dated October 25, 2016
N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\11-21-2016\Final\x7.1 sr.docx
o
Y - _
4
y � 6
� r �
Yty
N
I
- 4
assog OLbb-898-Zi9
a3RW 596Z-UZ-£9L
0££55 NIIV`aaeig iiia
A1N *IS XupgiV 8£561
aa�Iag assog pub' a3iiyv
•auuil anoX aoj noX 3iubgZ
•s.iaumo iuilualod aanln3 aoi pub, sn aoj ui
aeii of aigb,aisap aaouu aq osib, pinom II•poogaogg�liau ano ui s3iaap aaglo qj!m Iualsisuoa
Xjgpuospaa aq pinom IugI 3iaap v lanalsuoa of sn tAoiib, pinoAA aaubliaLIe agI jo JVAoaddV
•dn aulVa aanau suopaialsaa 3iaap lapis agl of aoop agI annul
pup aaagl smopuim aloin anrg of InoSul agI pa�iupga ani uagm Inq'3iaPq agI Ino Ig�lipals
�fuio�l 1;)ap agl ppg urid Isag anp •saina 3iarglas jo pauuaojui aaam io mou3i uana l,upip
atA`101+aaaIg uU uo saVaX Z£nano ioj vaa,uL,aoaao3 agl ui�Iuinp aajjV•aapiinq ano uuoaj
uoilVulaoJui aaisuoa puV lVaia uani�l IOU aaam pup �luipimq auzog jo lupao0i anm aAl
•a�lvsn sp aq sr sn aoi ivailmAtui si 3iaap aping•I3 8 uV 11upsanbaa
aar ani aaagm Idaaxa auuog agI jo apis iaglo Sup uo 3iaap v pimp of aigissod IOU si I1
•asnog agI 3o apis iaiooa ganuz agI pup apis 3Iamq agI uo si 3iaap
u ao3 aoop�luipgs agZ •apislno lis of aiquun air ani pup aauuuuns agI ui log Xjauuaalxa
slab Ii pup Isua agI samj asnog ano aanamog Isaoopino agI anoi glop I pup a3iiyv
•X.iols oml v aq ll!m Sla3ip urgl aaouu pup avaX v urgl aaouz
.ioj acus ioj uaaq svg Ig�lia ano of loi agZ-sn 3o apis iaglia uo saaumo Xjndoad agI qj!m
Iaiiiuoa IOU pinom pup auuog ino jo azis agI ioj a�lng Xiiapuipaopalxa IOU si 3iaap 9ixZi
IugI iaaj aA,i•(apis•I3 Zi agI uo) aauLIiaLIn io Iaai uL,gl ssai ao3�l .1 9 aa9 aM•sdals
ou qj!m ai�luvjaaa aiduuis v aq pinom 11•amog ano uo 3iaap 9ixZi v ppr oI a3iii pinom aAj
i
--
�+ 00 �#
Z6 log
WIN P,
2ao0.0 C4i
1 aR�arrrF�F % A.P irs
v 7. �--
i
03
0
•— foo
L� . a
e pro,- T . ,4
it - -
49.4rx
IL 1
t+ Ch
� dl p w
pre 0
F tr
A 1
ie
lox
66
L
T
+- k
I
L o
ti
LL
i
I
I
E
r�
o _
g Np ,
tzl
UT
4-
J4
-11'r
OT
i
,
1
0!1 + A
a
'u
i
I
• +� } O dN
L zm
U = M wn
@10
° a
■.I
CE)
0 m w w
Q uLL o r4 p 111ti: 7 "
zfo
-j p 9 Q c m a
CL
�mm m
z
a
133ZtLS ANbB�y
1 �
I I 1
111 n
I I
l
20.
1
I owe o _
a d 0 15A a I
r 7.0 -
I I
n O
r7 70. CD22� � 52.0 w
i
00i I t0
I 1.
caloom
i
I,
�v
of
U
pW
C
O�
D
7
T~ -
qq 1i
1 �1i
tall,
1
-
"4 C!6
cFr
p" � ,� filar r•-�
-P-WL=7 M w 4
x _
i
--r Z Cz.
_ _ ....-rte,+ir- _�- � _ _.. _ ..�_�. :-_ �•_--.��—__ �. .
Z LU
p
L
O O
O
LL
LL 0
a
Leeseberg, Chris
From: Rosie Menth <rosie.menth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:54 PM
To: Leeseberg, Chris
Subject: Re:Variance Questions?
Hi Chris ,
we ' re not sure what questions to ask .
when we first started the process you were very
honest with us and said upon your recommendation
you would ask the board to deny and then we would
move to the city council for reviewal .
we realize that there are other layout options
for the deck , but feel that the way we submitted
it is the way we would like it and would work the
best for our family . As taxpayers and members of
this community , we feel we should be able to
explore the possibility of having the deck laid
out the way we submitted . The option wrapping
around the side and under the windows would
hamper the view of the woods and personally we
feel would not look as great .
Thank you for following up . I ' m sure after
tonight we will have questions . such as , does it
automatically go to the city council , or do we
need to file any other forms?
It ' s always enlightening and educational to see
how our government - whether local , county , state
or national - works .
Rosie
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 1:24 PM, "Leeseberg, Chris" <CLeeseberq(d)ElkRiverMN.gov> wrote:
1