Loading...
4. BOASR 09-15-2009REQUEST FOR ACTION To Item Number Plannin Commission 4 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Plannin Items Se tember 15, 2009 Chris Leeseber ,Park Planner-Planner Item Description Reviewed by Consider request by Adam Kersten for side yard setback erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er variance to construct deck Reviewed by Case No. V 09-05 -public hearing Action Requested Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments approve the Side Yard Variance request, as illustrated on drawings dated 8/31 /09, for the following reasons: 1. All five criteria for granting a variance are met. 2. A maximum four (4) foot setback encroachment shall be allowed. 3. Only the portion of deck and stair extending 15 feet from the rear of the garage may be setback six (6) feet to the northeast property line. 4. No portion of the deck encroaching in the required setback shall be covered. Attachments • Location Map • Applicant's Narrative • Site Plan • Deck Drawings Case File: V 09-US Page 2 General Information Sidc Yard Variance Adam Kersten Applicant Adam Kersten 60 Day Rule The application has been deemed complete as of September 10, 2009. The Ci must take action b November 10, 2009 Requested Action Side Yard Setback Variance Location and Size 18287 Trott Brook Parkway -Approximately lh acre in size Location Existing Use Land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning Subject Property Residential Urban Residential PUD North Residential Urban Residential PUD South Residential Urban Residential PUD East Residential Urban Residential PUD West Residential Urban Residential PUD Overview The applicant had applied for a deck building permit and was notified that they needed a variance for approximately about 5 feet of the "landing" outside the garage service door. They are proposing a multileveled deck behind their house and garage. The deck is being built to be used as a gathering space, but it is also being incorporated into an egress landing area for the service door on the backside of the garage. The service door of the garage is approximately 4 feet above grade. The small landing area and stairs is the only portion of the deck that requires a variance. The building code requires a landing of at least the width of the door by three feet out from the wall. Aside from major landscaping and earth moving, there are no alternatives to providing a required landing area for the service door egress. The intent behind a greater deck (and house) setback than the garage setback is to provide for a minimum separation of "living" areas between homes. With the applied conditions, the portion of the deck in question is not likely to be used as living space. Therefore, the spirit of the ordinance is maintained. S:APLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V U9-US Kersten\V 09-05_BA.doc Case bile: V 09-05 Pagc 3 Applicable Regulations Variance Criteria Side Ward Variance Adam Kersten Literal enforcement o~the ordinance will cause undue hardshib. The garage service door was installed near the back corner of the garage. Because of elevation changes on the exterior, the service door is currently unusable. The literal enforcement of the ordinance would render the door unusable causing hardship for the property owner. 2. The hardship is caused by sbecial conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the~T~ert~ and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of or a~blicable to other lands or structure in the same area The special conditions are two: first, the difference in elevation of the door and the ground make the access unusable without a landing; second, the placement of the door puts any type of landing in violation of the setback ordinance. 3. The .r~ecial conditions and circumstances are not a consequence o~the t~etitioner'.r own action or inaction The house was purchased by the applicant from a previous owner. The applicant did not have the ability to work with the builder to place the door in an alternate location. The conditions are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. 4. The literal a~blication o~the i~rovisions o~this ordinance would de~irive the betitioner oughts enioyed b ~ 01 then brot~erties in the same district under the terms o~this ordinance The literal application will deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by others, as they will not be able to utilize the access door from their garage other properties in the same district. 5. The variance will not be iniurious to or adversely a~fect the health sa~ety or welfare o f the residents o the city or the neighborhood where the ~ro~erty is located and will 6e in keeling with spirit and intent of the ordinance The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood. Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up S:AYLANNING MAIN\Gase Files\Variance\V U9-US Kersten\~' U9-05_BA.doc Wd 6£~bS~Z 6002/i/6'6nnp~deW uoile~o~~uals~a~ SO-60 ~\a~ueue~~sa~id ase~~9NINNVId\~S Print Name: Adam Kersten A type written narrative explaining how the following criteria are met in order to be granted a variance: 1) That literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue (unnecessai-h, unavoidable, extreme) hardship. ~~ the dra~~~ings it l strata, roar home has a garage walk door that. was installed only inches off of the Bach corner of the structuue. 'T'his walk door, due to elevation differences, is clurend~- unusable. 'I'l~~c literal enforcerr~cnr c,f this <~rdinance dictates that the «~s~alk door ~~~ill nee e.r he ;able tc, be used he cause anti structuue dial could be built to gain access to this door would infringe upon the reyuircd setback. 2) That the hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district. 1'he problem is ncofold. h`irst, thr difference in elevation of the d<_>or ,and the grcnttld does n<~t all<,~w ~>ne to pass safely; Second, the placement <.~f the door is such that any attempt to create san access structure puts it in violation of the setback ordinance. 1 Iad better choices been made b~~ ~Iae builder, this could h:a~-e been avoided. 3) That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the applicant's own action or inaction. Since this home. ~,~ras pure}lased from previous openers, we land no c>pportunih- to work with the. builder to place the door in an alternate location. 4) That the literal application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Ordinance. A majoritT- of home in the neighborhood havt accessible garage:-walk doors. A&'i.thout grantiil~ tl>is variance, we will riot have use. caf said. dc:>or. "I'h.is is an issue for the folkawirl~ teas<~ns: • It is an aesthetics issue. 0 7'he. door, ~~-idaout <.t landing looks out of place and takes away from the finished look of the hcnne. o If •ve c°~-er chose to sell this property we would likely be penalized financially b~~ having this door u~laccessible. y . It is a Safety Issue. o ~\'ithout securing the door from the inside., one is Tree to w.~lh out tl~ie door to a S drop. o This door could serve ~as aa~a additional egress from the home should we lose lxawer to the garage doors. ~~%c don't have. that abilit~~ currei~ath~. 5) That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the Cit3~ or the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Since our ~~ard is fci~aced in, there is no access to the proposed strucn.~re to cause any adverse health, s afet~~, or welfare issues..-~\dditionstlly. the pr~>posed deck would not encroach any fu~rthe.r into this sr.ebacls than the garage already does, and since it is in the back ~-:ard, it ~~~ill not liheh~ be visuall}% apparent that the. deck is outside of normal boundaries. All five of these criteria need to be met in order to be granted a variance. Variance or Appeal of Zoning Decision Application 12~22~2008 Last Modified Page 3 s:~>>>,~uvtviNC b1~1tN~:lam;n\.1ppGcation corm.\~'a=;a„~~-,~~n~~;,~.a~,~ /~ ~ ~ / °°`~ ~~ ~ b ~~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ p,"' "~ ''$ 66 ~°Qr ,~lb ~e ~ ~~ \~ ~ ,C , ~c ; . -~ ~`.~ ~, 0 N ~ ~~ ~~~ £~° ~~ ~ ~>~ ~ ~~ ~ S~~ g~ ~ ~ p M 7~~ •~~ R~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~F;~ =~~a ~; ~~, ~. a~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ & ° ~~ ° ~ ' \ ~ `\ ..5 ,, (~ .~.< •~ ,~ . ~o :. rv ~Cs S y~ aX- T~ O W O O TV `~