Loading...
4. BASR 08-14-2007REQUEST FOR ACTION ver To Item Number Board of Ad~ustment 4 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Plannin Items Au ust 14, 2007 erem~~ Barnhart, Plannin Mana er Item Description Reviewed by Consider request for setback variance by Robert/ Heidi Anderson, Case IVo. ~' 07-U6 -Public Hearing Reviewed by Action Requested Staff recommends approval of a variance of 21 feet from the required front y=ard setback of 35 feet, as illustrated on drawings dated August 14, 2007. Background/Discussion The propern~ owners at 13800 189' Avenue are requesting a variance appro~-a1 to permit the construction of a detached garage within the required front yard setback. Financial Impact None Attachments Location Map Applicant's Narrative Site Plan General Information Applicant Robert/ Heidi Anderson 60 Day Rule The application. has been deemed complete as of Juh- 10, 2007. The Citj- must take action b~- Se tember 10, 2007. Requested Action Variance approval Location and Size Approximateh~ .3 acres north of the Elk River west of Lake Orono. Case File: A'-07-U6 Page 2 Front Yard setback Anderson, Robert and Heidi Location Existing Use Land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning Subject Property SF Res Urban Residential R-1b North SF Res Urban Residential R-1b South Elk River -Open Water R-1b East SF Res Urban Residential R-1b West SF Res Urban Residential R-1b Overview The property owner is requesting a variance from the front yard setback, allo~~ing a detached, two stall garage to be located approximately 14 feet from the front propert<- line along 189`'' Avenue. Approval would allow a 21 foot variance. An existing shed on the propert<~ is also located within the front yard setback. The proposed garage would be located closer to the street than the shed. Applicable Regulations l-'arzance Criteria 7. Lateral enforcement o{the ordinance avill cause unduehardsh~. There is little opportunit~• for placement of a garage on site without impact to the setbacks, septic drainage field setbacks, or river shoreline. Literal enforcement would require relocation of the existing septic drain field, and there are limited locations for the option. 2. The hardsbit~ is caused by sbecial conditions and circumstances avhich are i~eculiar to the ~roberty and the structure invoh~ed and avhich are not characterz.rtic of or a~~licable to other lands or structure in the same area The lot is a combination of two lots, and is relatively- not deep, and there is limited locations for the on site septic system. Additionally, the proximit<• to the river does establish a larger setback than would typically be required. The adjacent parcels could in theory- use the same argument, however, there are statistically very few lots meeting this same criteria within the City. 3. The .rbecial conditions and circumstances are not a consequence o~the~etitioner'r oivn action or inaction The house on the property is located in the western half of the lot, maximizing open space. The propertt~ is located within the Urban Ser~rices District, though no plans have surfaced to bring municipal utilities to the area. The nearest sanitary sewer is located in Concord street, roughly 13 blocks to the east If the property were hooked up to the Municipal ser~rices, ample space would be opened up to allow for the construction of the garage. S:\PLANNING\Case Files\Vaziance\\' 07-OG Anderson\Staff report to PC 8-14.doc Case File: V-U7-OG Front Yard setback Page 3 Anderson, Robert and Heidi 4. The literal abt~lication of the t~ro~nsion.r of thi r ordinance would derive the betitioner o~ rights en~oyed by other broberties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance The ordinance requires covered parking for at least one car. While garage parking is not a right, per se, the fact that the ordinance requires it supports the argument that the garage is an expectation in the neighborhood and the Cin•. ~. The variance evil! not he iniurious to or adversely a~fect the health salty or we~are of the residents o~the cit7~ or the neighborhood where the ~ro~er71~ i.r located and will be in keebing with r~irit and intent of the ordinance The views of this neighborhood. are primarily directed toward the adjacent river to the south. While their will be ~-isual impact on the street, the focus is on the south. Analysis In the review of this or any variance request, it is important to consider the goal of the comprehensive plan, intent of the ordinance, and the existing pattern of development. The Comprehensive plan identifies the area as urban residential: The land use is consistent with that designation, as well as the defined zoning district In theory>, the lot establishes a minimum, b~~ right, use for the propert<~ (the house). However, the ordinance further requires certain conditions, including the need to house a car on the propert<-. This requirement imposes addition requirements, adding to the argument for criteria 3,: applicants own actions. In this case, staff believes that the pattern of development lends itself to a successful argument of uniqueness: the street, developed toward the river, creates a neighborhood and st<Jle unique from other areas of the communit<~. Recommendation R tfullv Su ~ d Jeremy Ba ar Planning Manager Action Motion be Second b~~ Vote Follow Up S:\PI~ANNING\Case Files\\'anance\V 07-06 Anderson\Staff report to PC 8-14.doc E ~ ~ \~ C 1 ~ ~ N~~ ~ ~ 1-- ~--.._.._ - 1 /2" IP t--- __ „Plat No. I LS 8194 ~ / ~~_ -.. - -- -'° ' ~ ~ C 3." tP OPEN I 1N : • ~~ GGGrovel Rood,, {woy ~ ~ I o I OV ~~ ~~ 1'e t~`~~' ~ r' (4.16 N I ~ _ ( 4.24 W~ ' I „~ Q~_o____S 88°52'35" W 3 - ' ( 99.43 ~'` ~ LS 8194 I ~ ~ Wood Fence - 1 ^ ~ ~- i 50 P ~,'+ rr ~ ; 5 `...PR ~ ~ ~ X50 ~ ~ ._.._ ~ ~ A•9.71 PRO ~„ Ret. Woll , •- ~ ~ .' V ~ '- ~ ~~ .~ n n ~o~~ _ is.s_ ~a~o~~~n SHED ~ ~ -~;~:__ cWi1 • 8.1 24.1 3 ti ~ v I a I~TlT17lTll --;- ° ~ _ q ~ ~ X6.1 ~, Jai' `"~-- _~~c~~ -1 _.. _ _..~ "~,7C 6.7 ~ '"'. 71.8 ~'~' ~ ~ ~ Y' ~` I 4 - ~ ~ r~r r O , -- ~ r rY T HOUSE X6.7 :~p~~.~ ~ ~'""J" o i _.. r t ~,t t _ #13800 csV +~Cld ~ 'r ~,: h 1V 1 i ~S rS 3 C .........~.~,.._ ~ -~ us '' I /1 T e o ~ ~o2ti° ry ~ Q~~ $~~~ ~ ~ :. ~.Yt Sri i ti~ 2,s ~ AREA: 12,960 sq. ft. or 0!30 oc. ATE RE~ElVEC~ A~ ry~7 _ ._ _ (Lot 6 ac Lot 7) -P I ~ ~~. ^`Ne~a Londscope Rock Edge SEE DET,~IL -- -~ ~ v~ '_ \ 1 /2" IRON ROD ~- '~' S0 P ~ ~ _/ (Held for line) `~ < / C7 ~`' - 5 - -- - - --__ 1 _ i ~NQ` ~ ID LOT ® `~ ^-- ~ 1 ~ Rl VFR -~ ! SHORELINE DETAIL " ~./ J- t ~ 1 /2 IRON ~-AREA: 790 sq. ft. or 0:02 ac. ! 0.46 R00 Robert and Heidi Anderson 13800 189th Ave NW Variance Criteria z. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. Literal enforcement would not allow for a garage on the property. a. The hardship is cause by special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the property and the stricture involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands in the same area. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the property. This property is a third of an acre, but is zoned in such a way that is more appropriate for the acre lots in the surrounding neighborhood. Added to this, it has very limited buildable area due to the septic drainage field setback. Also, the development in which the property is located is an older established neighborhood. Since many of the structures in the neighborhood were built, there may have been ordinance changes, as there are other structures in the area that severely encroach the current front yard setback requirements. (See neighborhood photos). g. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. The conditions are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. All structures, including the septic drainage field, were present when the property was purchased. 4. 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. Without a front yard variance, the property could not construct a garage which would meet the city's minimum requirement. The variance would not establish inconsistency with the neighborhood character. 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 be in keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance. The request 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. In fact, property owner's vehicles will no longer be parked in close proximity to the road at the "T" of Pascal Street NW and i89~ Ave NW. (See photo).