HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Ron Miller Variance AppealCITY 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
AGENDA
I'MM # 7 A
ATTACHMENTS: LETTER OF:APPEAL, STAFF MEMO
APPROVED BY:
PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET, MINUTES OF PC MTG
�AL
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 deniedthevariance 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: A motion to uphold the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the variance petition of Mr. Ron Miller because the
request did not meet the required findings of Section 15.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
COUNCIL ACTION:
(Pity of Rosemount
PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 -145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
FAX (6121 423-5203 Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 510, Rosemount. Minnesota 55068-0510
MEMO
TO: Mayor Napper
Councilmembers Willcox, Wippermann, Oxborough,
FROM: Lisa Freese, Director of Planning
SUBJ: Ron Miller Variance Appeal
DATE: October 11, 1991
MAYOR
Vernon Napper
COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila. Klassen
John Oxborough
Harry Willcox
Dennis Wippermann
ADMINISTRATOR
KlaSSenhan Jilk
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.
l6verylk 'ng s (9oming l f t osPmounl �l
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 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.
aft'
.. wG w■ rf■. ff{y
r
(Pity of Rosemount
PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address'
P. O Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning
DATE: August 25, 1991
SUBJ: 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 REQUEST:
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.
6veryllztngs CovnI `��P (0?osevnouvz1P
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 Millers 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.
(Pity of (O?osemouni
PHONE (612) 423-4411
FAX (612) 423-5203
June 24, 1991
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 tWA 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 for your cooperation.
Sincerpiy,
Yaui R. heimkes
City Buildinq Inspector
cc: Ron Wasmund, Building Official
Lisa Freese, Planning Director
Mike Fricke, Building Inspector
i6verylhinq s Coming ( fi(—qfosevnounlll
City of Rosemount N2:
VARIANCE PETITION
NEWs 049M
Applicant: p Phone:
Address: os -0 22-�
STATUS OF APPLICANT:
Owner Buyer Lessee OTHER:
LOCATION: Lot Block---!—, Addition Wt n.9 M fj n Y)
Street Address: S2 r IV-�2 (,,),s -f 10141"?
Metes & Bounds Description Attached:
Survey or Plot Plan Attached:
Variance Requested. 13 r)" -p- C, Jj 0 Y011 -2 -We n
(01 --me anchgetecc t"
Proposed Zoning:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
y4,14 �
2.
_4
/S�
3.
Signature of Applicant
FOR FFICE USE ONLY
Application received by: Date:
Fee: How Paid: �ah 4�25 Date:?���9 /
Planning Commission Action:
Date:
a
a N
.0 1 iv
Tr —
jh
v
r�i � ►'� i ;;ta,.t
F ' '
Q
Sp,q c" ,
5 \ F,
`1
2
V- 21
Vim' c 1�.1 `7 M A t�� tai -:C• C i'-; O Imo! �
Al V -
Mir.. �"�SGTa
}. OR -T 14
t.Gc�c
I"-- 30'
A�� 5EA =•� �S dEf�UMED
I hereby cerci -y that this survey was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Land Surve -or under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Date:
LeRoy Bohlen
Registered Land Surveyor No. 10795
- -- MILLED VARIANCE LOCATION MAP
.%'G=ars �arr _ — �— �•'� � .•. I� ♦ �Y t�
Am
fj
°'
I t
I( �\
�� I `�• + 1 \ � I II Iii t� z
„I " li III�L
J I III I Ii IL
IL
096
f
�I/ ( N II / / II / �t1 c
\ II jr / I
LLJ
...co
if
(�j - o � �/ �, � �. I I —III +•I
cD 'I
f
tco
111 \) I JJ��`f `/ � /� //�3J' ..• � (�l ; � \-' ` \ 1 �I I+
1p
5/v `� 2 1 / 'zJ
\
10-12-91
We residents of Rosemount and neighbors of Ron & Lisa Miller
located at 4050 152nd ct. W. see nothing un -appealing nor
hazardous about their existing deck being constructed four foot
within the current ten foot set back requirement. Therefore,
we ask that the city council grant them a variance to leave
their deck as it is currently constructed!
Name;
8
_ 0.
Address;