Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.e. Ron Miller Deck AppealEXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Ron Miller Variance Appeal AGENDA SECTION: OLD BUSINESS PREPARED BY: Lisa Freese, Director Planning AGENDA N7EM# , 5 E of ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Appeal; Staff Memo; AP VEDA BY• - Planning Comm. Packet; Minutes of PC Meeting �L/ On October 15, 1991 the City Council considered the variance appeal of Ron Miller. As you will recall, the Council delayed action on the appeal and asked staff to inventory the Wensmann Development to assess the number of illegal decks and the potential number of deck variance requests that may result from the construction practices of the developer. Planning and Building staff field checked all four additions of the Wensmann development. Other than Mr. Miller's deck, only one other deck was found to be in violation of the setback requirements. The deck that is in violation was constructed with a permit, in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, but the homeowner made modifications to the deck after final inspection. Staff identified three more potential decks that could be constructed in the side yard to utilize existing patio doors. Of those three potential decks, only one of the homeowners would have difficulty designing an adequate deck because of the setback constraints. At the last meeting there was uncertainty about the size of Mr. Miller's original deck and whether it conformed to the setback requirements. The deck was 8 feet wide by 10 feet long and it did conform to the side yard setbacks at the time it was built in 1987. The side yard setback under the old Zoning Ordinance was five feet. In 1989, the side yard setback was changed to ten feet. So Mr. Miller's old deck was considered legal nonconforming. It would be staff's recommendation that Mr. Miller's appeal be denied, but that the Council allow him to reconstruct a deck no larger than the previous 8' x 10' deck. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the variance petition of Mr. Ron Miller because the request does not meet the required findings of Section 15.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: RON MILLER VARIANCE APPEAL AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS PREPARED BY: LISA FREESE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AGENDIMM" # 7 A ATTACHMENTS: LETTER OF APPEAL, STAFF MEMO APPROVED BY: PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET, MINUTES OF PC MTG ( & Mr. Ron Miller is appealing the Planning Commission's decision at their August 27 regular meeting to deny his variance petition request. Mr. Miller was requesting a 4.5 foot side yard setback variance in order to allow him to keep a deck that he constructed earlier this year. The Planning Commission, in their capacity as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, unanimously denied the variance petition because it did not meet the requirements of Section 15.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to overturn the Planning Commission decision, the City Council must determine that the Commission erred in fact, finding or procedure when making the decision on Mr. Miller request. The attached letter from Mr. Miller explains his grounds for appeal. The staff memo discusses the issues raised by Mr. Miller. RECOMMENDED ACTION: decision to deny the request did not meet Zoning Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION: A motion to uphold the Planning Commission's variance petition of Mr. Ron Miller because the the required findings of Section 15.2 of the 0 ity o(Rosemount PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address: Vernon Napper P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS MEMO Sheila Klassen John Oxborough Harry Willcox - Dennis Wippermann TO: Mayor Napper ADMINISTRATOR Councilmembers Willcox, Wippermann, Oxborough, KlaSSeTrhanJilk FROM: Lisa Freese, Director of Planning SUBJ: Ron Miller Variance Appeal DATE: October 11, 1991 In Zoning, variances can be granted to relieve a property owner of an unnecessary.hardship relative to a physical limitation of his or her property created by the Zoning Ordinance. In considering variances, the Zoning Ordinance is very specific regarding the criteria for granting variances. In order to approve a variance the Planning Commission is required to make five findings: 1. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 2. Strict interpretation of enforcement would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district. 5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not permitted in the zoning district in question. Mr. Miller has stated several reasons as to why he believes his variance appeal should have been approved. Mr. Miller states that he was unaware that a permit was required. While this is unfortunate, ignorance of the law does not make one exempt from the law. Had Mr. Miller made an inquiry about the regulations for building a deck his situation could have been avoided. Setbacks are a part of the Zoning Ordinance to provide adequate distances between buildings for fire safety; adequate protection of light, ventilation and noise from adjacent property; and uniformity in standards in neighborhoods so that people living in a particular zoning district can expect protection from unwanted intrusions. (Sverylkings Coming (Yb gosemounlY `J iW vL.ecr��ea wue� MILLER APPEAL PAGE 2 Mr. Miller does have options to build a legal conforming deck, so the City is not depriving him of reasonable use of his property. Unfortunately, the Millers find the other options available to them as discussed in the Planning Commission Review unacceptable. Originally, there was some confusion regarding the interpretation of the Ordinance when reviewing the building plan for the deck and staff apologizes for the inconvenience. But Mr. Miller was never issued a building permit for the deck. As for the other decks that Mr. Miller alleges are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, staff is investigating them. If they are in violation of the Ordinance, they will be notified of the problem. At the Council meeting Staff will also be prepared to address questions regarding the history of the previous decks on the Millers house. page 1 of 2 September 24, 1991 City of Rosemount Attn: City clerk From: Ron Miller 4050 152nd ct. W. Re: Variance petition I am submitting this appeal request for the purpose of keeping our deck as it is. On August 27th we were denied a variance on Lisa Freese's recommendation that we did not meet the need for a variance. I still strongly believe that our proposed variance is justifiable based on the following circumstances that lead to building our deck on the side of our home. 1. The developer built the house 15' from the property line with the walk- out bay window extending an additional 31. Paul Heimkes informed the developer that this would present a problem when building a deck. The developer still constructed a deck which was illegal and had to be removed; however, he re- built another deck(without a permit & no plans on file) that was again out of code. This deck was 8'x10', 3' into the setback! 2. In may of this year we decided that this deck was not adequate do to the size 81x10' with the bay window taking up 1/3 of the area. We could not even put a table on it.(see photo) When I was 3/4 finished Paul Heimkes sent us a letter informing me that we needed a permit to build a deck. He originally indicated that he saw no problems with the deck, however we found out later that we needed a variance. 3. We began construction on the deck on the basis that we were improving the existing deck that was inadequate. Also we were staying out of the 5' utility easement that I found on our plat drawing. 4. We were unaware that you have to obtain a permit to do any type of con- struction in the city of Rosemount. In the two previous cities that we lived we either had a neighborhood ordinance that we were given, or the city mailed information packets to new homeowners on what restrictions homeowners have. To our knowledge Rosemount has neither! 5. We felt that the deck that we constructed was an improvement over the existing deck and a improvement to our lot and neighborhood (see Photo). This also presented no hazard of obstructing view for drivers or physical danger. 6. It would not be economical & appealing to run the deck 30' around the back of our house. Also by running the deck around the back we would have been covering up the southern light exposure to our lower level windows. 7. If we lower the deck to meet the 30" max. requirement we would be unable to put a legal rail on for safety concerns for our children. Also by lowering the deck we would also be in the way of the side window. 8. We will also submit a petition signed by our neighbors that they see no problem with the deck as it is constructed currently. page 2 of 2 Some questions and concerns that we have are: 1. How come no one noticed the original deck was not legal, and constructed without a permit? This was the fourth house built in this development so the inspectors should have not missed this! 2. How come the city allows the developers to put the homeowners in these situations? Why should we the homeowner suffer for something the city has since correct with this developer by not letting him put walk -out bays on the side of the house! 3. What or why is the purpose of the 10' setback? 4. Why can a 30" deck come out to within 5' of the line and all higher decks must be 10' from the line? 5. Who decided that a 30" high deck with no rail is safer than a 5' high deck with a rail? 6. How come their are two other decks in this neighborhood that are within this setback restriction and did not obtain a variance for their permits? In summary it is hard to believe that it has been 5 months since we began this discussion on our deck. It started with a simple letter asking us to get a permit, to being told that we needed a variance, to sorry we do not need a variance, to sorry again you now need a variance, and finally the city is not going to grant a variance. With this in mind I would hope the city of Rosemount would agree this is why you °variances to help homeowners in our situation, and grant this variance as being within reason and justifiable! Thank You! Ron & Lisa Miller P.S. We will bring the signed petition from our neighbors to the council meeting. PHONE (612) 423-4411 FAX (612) 423-5203 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: (Pity of (Rosemount 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota Mailing Address: P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 Planning Commission Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning August 25, 1991 August 27, 1991 Regular Meeting Reviews ATTACHMENTS: VARIANCE APPLICATION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS LOCATION MAPS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE &MAILING LIST 6. PUBLIC HEARING: RON MILLER - SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE PETITION MAYOR Vernon Napper COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen John Oxborough Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to deny the variance petition of Mr. Ron Miller because it does not meet the requirements of Section 15.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. NATURE OF REOUEST: Mr. Ron Miller has constructed a deck without a building permit onto his single family home located at 4050 152nd Court West. This deck encroaches into the required side yard setback approximately 416". In the R-1 Single Family District a 10 foot side yard setback is required for decks of this design. The deck is 5 feet high and the deck area is 9110" wide by 28' long. The deck has steps going off of it into the rear yard. The deck does not encroach into the 5 foot utility easement. BACKGROUND: When Mr. Miller's home was constructed in 1988 the developer installed a bay projection with a patio door. At that time, the building inspection staff advised the builder of the potential setback problem. The developer chose to install the bay anyway and also constructed deck at this location which met setback requirements. Mr. Miller felt the original deck was inadequate in size and replaced it with a larger deck which is the subject of this variance request. 6vertylkings Coming ( J6 gosemounlll RON MILLER PAGE 2 REQUIRED FINDINGS: In order to approve a variance the Planning Commission is required to make five findings: 1. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 2. Strict interpretation of enforcement would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this ordinance and the comprehensive Guide Plan. 3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners .in the same district. 5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not permitted in the zoning district in question. DISCUSSION: It is unfortunate that the developer did not show more sensitivity in the location and design of the patio door bay. There are, however, deck expansion options that are available which can meet the City's setback requirements. Mr. Miller could have increased his deck area by adding on lower level deck ,below 30 inches and connecting it with steps. He could also have extended the original deck out into the rear yard. Mr. Millers situation is quite similar to other property owners in the neighborhood. The Building Inspection Staff reports that at least one other property owner was required to reduce the size of a deck in the immediate neighborhood. Mr Miller's request does not meet required findings 2,3 and 4 of Section 15.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore Staff recommends denial of the petition. City of Rosemount N°: VARIANCE PETITION Date: Applicant: 1,04, 1 /ley- Phone: Address: Y OSS i.s'2 r4� t9-9-RIV02 11 --212r STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner Buyer Lessee OTHER: LOCATION: Lot -12--, Block .3 Addition W -t Yl g MG[ n 12 Street Address: u r>5 O ) S'; .r—± IV- Q a c /7/,, �7 Metes & Bounds Description Attached: Survey or Plot Plan Attached: Variance Request d: ( crne cntr*acte /is$) Proposed Zoning: REASON FOR REQUEST: L C� �Ae Y 4 n �,, ��1 u - r �, 4- 1:2 (.o r? rL,SC 14 2. N ro r7 0 i �� �e� % r r� l f % P� �� LL �)UUSC L�'LV�L' �OL�S��, CryU'ltr Signature of Applicant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application received by: 4jt Date: Fee: $ _���� How Paid: #5 Date: Planning Commission Action: Date: i I I w� �,� a I y �5��>� I �� - i �i��alf i S►� �t v0 U r b y(As (. !} I S v 7 UV 4 y fG (� t4 r y --(,rw Jisi t-� v»ov\t ouliidoco arovri611 �o dint 6oc'J� DI �Ur 1'�0CJS e --)-), . D4 vel le- ,p a A. 8' X Io' cl -0: 'k ' �'rrY a model �i,� s e. -By �4 yoL� = i1LDvt Ct {-tOLh� 1L�(Ait p f U5( (1 ;9 01,P% �fG Vu M) h�►c,rs hCl Gq �rOb� !14,, t 0\ Ou Clrc% �� 0- k-/Ity of Rosemount PHONE (612) 423-4411 FAX (612) 423-5203 June 24, 1591 Ron Miller 4050 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 Dear Mr. Miller: 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota Mailing Address: P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 MAYOR Vernon Napper COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen John Oxborough Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk This letter is to inform you that I have received and completed the review of your newly constructed deck - permit application. Upon completing the review, I found that, according to your site plan, your deck encroaches into the required side yard setback by approximately 4'6" +/-. The City Zoning Code requires a minimum of 10'0" clear setback at side yards from the property line. because of this, I am at present only aware of tW® options that you have to resolve this problem. 1. Reconstruct the deck so that it meets the 10'0" minimum side yard setback. 2. Apply for a variance to the Planning Commission. To get more information or an application for a variance, you may contact Lisa Freese, the Planning Department Director at 322-2051. Please contact me within the next 10 working days at City Hall (322-2024) so we can discuss your options and a specific method of resolving this issue. Thank you tar your cooperation. Sincer y, Paul R. Heimkes City building Inspector cc: Ron Wasmund, Building Official Lisa Freese, Planning Director Mike Fricke, Building Inspector 6very1l Ing s �ovning (Utl gosevnouni!P i% a L � t 5 i - ca O w do I� f t 7r, C 4h b N GI Cr-- P—lPI 1 IC iti t-0 1 i l I >3L�-lt 31 hN-jMANhi DAV-0—. A. GG'✓ i M1hdW S✓TA A .L BCP -2A-4-51 AKUN C—b I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my d`_rect supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surve--or under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dater LeRoy Y. -Bohlen Registered Land Surveyor No. 10795 I liij MILLER VARIANCE LOCATION MAR =- o,91* n F, D- �/ I1I y Ii Ir ir it II ( I II v it _ _II r) ).j yII I \ — \ 1 1 �I g \ / Ihr L i , ftl > /ir f 1 / N Cc I Iz/i (Ilk.L-_EF � 1 -L, I If 7 [Y� I I ' \ v - if 11, + / _ Lr) ro IL / 1 / CID / t c 1t i 1 1, ► ` it N \` U /�-_J...a- \ H I III I _ I o (' it tl ,� Q ' ��� t� \ sib `� ✓ � � 4�.