Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Variance - 1770 Greystone - Martin To: Planning Commissioners From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director Date: April 13, 2020 Item: Ian Martin - Variance #2020-18 - Sideyard Setback - Deck - 1770 Greystone Rd Planning Commission Action Requested Review and make recommendation to the City Council on the following action requested by Ian Martin on property located at 1770 Greystone Road: 1) Grant a five foot variance to the minimum five foot required setback to allow placement of a deck abutting the side property line. The minimum setback is established under Hastings City Code Chapter 155.05, Subd. D(11) - Accessory Building and Structure Requirements, and Chapter 155.50 - Residential Lot Requirements BACKGROUND INFORMATION History On September 13, 2019 Mr. Martin submitted a building permit application to construct the subject deck. The original permit requested permission to construct a 12’x24’ (12’ x 22’ is now requested) deck on the eastern side of the home. Mr. Martin was notified that the permit could not be issued due the following: 1) Location of the deck within the five foot minimum sideyard setback. 2) Placement of a structure within the five foot drainage and utility easement. During the 2019 permit review City Staff discussed options with Mr. Martin to allow construction of the deck which included reducing the size of the deck to comply with minimum setback and easement requirements. Mr. Martin asked if a variance to the sideyard setback could be considered and was told that staff did not believe a variance would meet the ordinance requirements and a recommendation for denial of the variance was likely. Mr. Martin proceeded to construct the deck without securing a building permit or other City approvals. On March 31, 2020 the Hastings Building Department issued a stop work order on the Planning Commission Memorandum construction of the deck for failure to secure approvals. Deck footings and structural members had been installed at the time of the stop work order as evidenced by the enclosed pictures. On April 1, 2020 Mr. Martin submitted a Land Use Application for the subject variance to allow construction of a 12’x22’ deck located on the east side of this home. Zoning The property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Decks are a permitted use within the R-1 District upon adherence to the five foot minimum setback requirement. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use The following land uses abut the property: Direction Use Comp Plan District Zoning District North Single Family Low Density Residential R-1 - Single Family East Stormwater Pond Low Density Residential R-1 - Single Family South Greystone Rd Single Family Low Density Residential R-1 - Single Family West Vacant - Future Single Family Home Low Density Residential R-1 - Single Family Public Notification Notification of the meeting was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the proposed property. Staff has not received any questions or comments as of this writing. VARIANCE REVIEW Variance Definition Variances are deviations from strict compliance of City Code provisions. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may recommend issuance of a Variance upon determination of findings of fact and conclusions supporting the variance as established in Chapter 30.02, Subd. F of the City Code. Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals Hastings City Code Chapter 30.02 establishes the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals and appoints the Planning Commission to facilitate the Board’s roles and duties. Applications for Variances require Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals review. Requested Variance – Minimum Sideyard Setback in the R-1 Zoning District City Code Chapter 155.05, Subd. D(11) - Accessory Building and Structure Requirements, and Chapter 155.50 - Residential Lot Requirements both establish a minimum five foot sideyard setback requirement for the placement of decks within the R-1 Zoning District. Variance Review City Code Chapter 30.02(F) establishes the requirement for granting variances. The Planning Commission (acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals) may consider variances to the Zoning Code that are not contrary to the public interest where owing to special conditions, and where a literal enforcement of the provision of the City Code would result in practical difficulties. Variances may be granted providing the following has been satisfied (staff review appears in bold italics): (1) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographic conditions of the land involved, a practical difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; The physical surrounds, shape or topographical condition of the land is not unusual to other properties in the immediate vicinity and does not present a practical difficulty. (2) The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based are unique to the tract of land for which the variance is sought and one not applicable, generally, to other property with the same zoning classification; The conditions are not unique to the land. A stormwater ponding basin owned and maintained by the homeowners association abuts the proposed deck; however the site is one of 14 properties that abut the same stormwater ponding basin. (3) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; The owner seeks to enhance utilization of the property through construction of a deck. (4) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the vicinity in which the tract of land is located; Granting of the variance would allow construction of the deck within the publicly dedicated drainage and utility easement and would limit use of the easement for the benefit of the public. (5) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the vicinity; (Prior Code, §11.08) It does not appear that the variance will impair light, air, congestion, fire danger, public safety, or property values within the vicinity. (6) The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; Granting of the variance would reduce the sideyard setback to zero feet and is contrary to the intent and purpose of the ordinance. (7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The property is guided for low density residential development. The proposed use appears consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; Placement of a deck within the drainage and utility easement and with no setback to an adjoining property does not put the property to use in a reasonable manner. (9) There are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of the variance means that: (a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; Construction of a deck puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; however the location of the structure within the drainage and utility easement and abutting the property line is not a reasonable use. (b) The practical difficulty is caused by the provisions of this chapter and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land; The practical difficulty was created by the applicant’s decision to place the home and access door to the deck in close proximity to the property line. 1. A practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished under the current Ordinance requirements, The applicant could reduce the deck width from 12 feet to 7 feet and meet the ordinance requirement. The deck may also be able to wrap around the house from the east side to the north side where the deck could be expanded and still have views of the pond. (c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Allowance of the variance without a unique hardship could confer the ability to construct decks in close proximity to the property line, altering the essential character of the locality. (d) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Not stated by applicant. (e) Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Denial of the Variance is recommended subject to the above findings of fact in the Variance Review. Granting a variance without the identification of a unique practical difficulty could confer similar rights on other properties and creates difficulty in administering zoning regulations uniformly. ATTACHMENTS • Location Map • Site Plan (From 2019 Building Permit Application) • Letter and Pictures from Applicant • Land Use Application AERIAL MAP Deck Location SITE PLAN From 2019 Building Permit Applicant Proposes a 12’x 22’ deck Ian T. Martin 1770 Greystone Road Hastings, MN 55033 Mayor Fasbender, Council Members and Planning Commission Members, Before you tonight is a retrospective land use application seeking a variance to approve a deck at my residence at 1770 Greystone Road. The lot is unique as it abuts a pond that is owned by our development, Wyndham Hills. The pond is what drew us to this piece of property as both my wife and I enjoy the outdoors and constructed our house as such for the back of it to face the pond. We purchased the land in 2016 and began construction in the spring of 2017. Building plans and site review was approved with the plans showing a future deck and egress windows on the east side of the home. Much to my chagrin, the egress window well per code (min. 36” from opening), had to be constructed in the easement area to provide enough space for egress in the event of a fire or something of the like. The city approved the site plan where the house currently sits. What I am asking for from you tonight is to grant this variance due to its minimal impact on our property and its easement. We don’t have a neighbor to the east of us, only grass and water. There is an over abundance of space to access the pond even with the deck constructed as it sits. For a variance to be granted, three factors must be met: Reasonableness, Uniqueness and Essential Character. Below are my arguments in support of each factor. Reasonableness: The deck is of a proportionate size and in some instances smaller than surrounding decks on the homes surrounding our home in question. It does not affect property values of abutting properties, sight lines of abutting properties, wildlife, or drainage in any way. Access to the pond is also not encumbered by the deck as there is ample space from the deck to the water’s edge to perform work should the need ever arise (the pond is private property and not city owned or maintained). The deck piers also sit closer to the house than the already approved egress window well by way of a license to encroach into the easement that was recorded at Dakota County in October of 2019. Uniqueness: The plans for the home were submitted for a site plan and building review prior to the issuance of a building permit and were approved knowing the window well would have to lie in the easement area by city staff. This misstep did not come to our knowledge as homeowners until the final grade was failed partly due to this issue. Due to the unique situation, a license to encroach was issued by city staff and recorded in Dakota County in October of 2019 granting permission for the improvements and egress window well in the easement area. The deck piers lie considerably closer to the house than the already approved improvements granted by the license to encroach. Lastly, the property lies next to a pond that allows for far more than adequate access to maintenance of the pond and surrounding property than a typical city lot would allow if say a house was built next to our property. Essential Character: All the homes around the pond by our property have decks that have enhanced their property value and overall enjoyment of their property. Many decks are larger and more complex than what ours is. The overall character of what is being asked is not negatively impacted. We are avid outdoors people and take great care of our property. In closing, what we are asking for has no negative impacts to the neighborhood, neighbors, and the enjoyment of their property. The deck is harmonious with the intents and purposes of the ordinance, puts our property to use in a reasonable manner, and does not alter the character of the neighborhood in which we reside. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Ian T. Martin Ian T. Martin 1770 Greystone Road Hastings, MN 55033 Re: Supplemental photos of property and deck 25’ from edge of deck to weed edge Property Line All edging, landscape rock, and retaining wall for egress window well was approved via license to encroach granted by city staff at their request Oct. 2019. Deck piers lie approx. 30” closer to the house than city approved edging lies from the house at its furthest point out near sump pump drain exit. Property Line 30” This picture gives you an idea of how much space is between the deck and the water. Keep in mind the pond is higher than it normally is due to the recent rain when this picture was taken (April 2nd) and the ice out that occurred on the pond a week prior. Footings for deck were purposely left high if a 500 year flood were to ever create an issue, although as you can see, our basement floor is the area of most concern as it sits below the water level of the pond.