Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Larson Deck Variance PC ExecSum 04-28-15EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board of Appealsand Adjustments Meeting: April 28, 2015 TentativeCityCouncilMeeting(IfAppealed): May20,2015 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM: Case 15-14-V Eric LarsonDeck Setback Public Hearing Variance PREPARED BY: AGENDA NO. Jason Lindahl, Planner,A.I.C.P.6.a. ATTACHMENTS:APPROVED BY: Site Location Map, Survey, Aerial Photos,K.L. Deck Plans RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTIONto ck variance to allow construction of a , subject to the following condition: 1.Approval of a building permit. 2.Conformance with the attached survey and deck plans. SUMMARY Applicant & Property Owner: Eric Larson th Location: 2645 148 Street West Property Size: 12,855 Square Feet (0.3 Acres) Comp. Guide Plan Design: LDR Low Density Residential Current Zoning: R1 Low Density Residential The applicant, Eric Larson, requests a street side yard setback variance for an accessory structure, a deck, from the required setback ion (see attached survey). Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the finding that the applicant , given the ation for approval is subject to the conditions listed in the recommended action section above. BACKGROUND The Rosewood Estates subdivision. This neighborhood was subdivided in 2002 and most of the homes were built between 2003 and 2005. The neighborhood was developed under the R-1, Low Density Residential zoning regulations and conforms to all standards of that district. However, there are unique circumstances affecting the subject property not created by the landowner necessitating the proposed variance. First, the subject property has street frontage on three sides requiring these yards to comply with the front yard setback standards. Second, the house is oriented th toward 148 Street West rather than the adjacent homes on Boston Circle which positions the subject property is impacted by the bulb of the Boston Circle cul-de-sac resulting in a uniquely shaped and small back yard. Deck placement on this property is further complicated by the fact that the existing patio door is located in the northeast corner of the house directly adjacent to the narrowest portion of the back yard. ISSUE ANALYSIS Variance Standards. City review of a variance application is a Quasi-Judicial action assigned to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Generally, if the application meets the review standards the variance must be approved. The standards for reviewing variances are detailed in Section 11-12-2.G of the City Code and are based on the standards set forth in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. In Summary, variances may be granted when the applicant establishes there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning regulations. A practical difficulty is defined by the four questions listed below. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, under the statute, the Board may choose to add conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The standards for reviewing a variance application and each are provided below. 1.Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: According to Section 11-4-5, the purpose and intent of the R-1, Low Density Residential district is to accommodate newer single-family detached housing development within the metropolitan urban service area. The R-1, Low De and staff finds decks to be included under this use category. Therefore, staff finds a variance to provide a reasonably sized deck in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. 2.Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The subject property is guided LDR Low Density Residential by the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, single family homes are the predominant land use in this district and the most appropriate zoning classification for this area is R-1, Low Density Residential. Given that decks are considered an accessory use in the R-1, Low Density Residential district, staff finds a variance to provide a reasonably sized deck consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3.Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: Staff finds the proposed variance would put the property to use in a reasonable manner. The subject property contains a look- street facing yard. Under these circumstances, the zoning ordinance requires decks to be setback at restrictin, significantly limiting the use and enjoyment of the patio door and back yard. As a result, positioned reasonable use. 4.Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are unique street frontages, building orientation and shape conditions affecting the subject property not created by the landowner necessitating the proposed variance. First, the subject property has street frontage on three sides requiring these yards to comply with the front yard setback 2 standards, which are greater than a typical back or side yard setback. Second, the house is oriented th toward 148 Street West rather than the adjacent homes on Boston Circle which positions the subject property is impacted by the bulb of the Boston Circle cul-de-sac resulting in a uniquely shaped and small back yard. Deck placement on this property is further complicated by the fact that the existing patio door is located in the northeast corner of the house directly adjacent to the narrowest portion of the lot. Staff would expect to support for other variances for a deck in similar circumstances. 5.Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Staff finds the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding neighborhood is made up of single family homes and the vast majority of those look-out or walk-out homes include a rear yard deck. Under the zoning ordinance, decks on those homes must . The proposed variance would allow the applicant to required for decks located in typical rear yards. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends th Street West, subject to the conditions listed in the recommended action section above. This recommendation is based on the information submitted by the applicant and the findings made in this report. It should be noted that decisions made by the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant, the Zoning Administrator, a member of the City Council or any person owning property or residing within of the property affected by the decision. All appeal requests must be filed with the Planning Department within ten (10) working days of the action by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. 3 Larson V ariance Aerial North V iew Larson V ariance Aerial South V iew