09/08/11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Adjustment Meeting Date: 09/08/2011 By: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Title: Consider Request for Variance to Front Yard Setback at 8700 171st Ave NW; Case of Rob Schiller Background: The City has received a request from Rob Schiller for a Variance to Front Yard Setback to allow for a four (4) foot expansion of an existing attached garage located at 8700 171st Ave NW. Notification: Staff attempted to notify all property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the Anoka County Union. Observations: The Subject Property is located within the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) zoning district. The required front yard setback in this zoning district is forty (40) feet from the front property line. According to a Certificate of Survey prepared as part of construction of the home, it appears the existing structure is located with a forty (40) foot front yard setback. The Applicant desires to construct a four (4) foot addition on the front of the garage in order to create enough depth to be able to park an existing motor vehicle within the garage. This would create a four (4) foot encroachment into the front yard setback, thus requiring the issuance of a Variance. Based on submitted materials, it appears that all other zoning standards would be met with the request including, but not limited to, size and exterior materials. As the Board of Adjustment may recall, there was a recent amendment to Minnesota Statute Sect. related to Variance procedures. In general terms, the major change included the elimination of the 'undue hardship' standard, replaced by the 'practical difficulty' standard. The new, less stringent standard allows cities to approve a variance from the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance if the Applicant proves the request is reasonable. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. The three (3) factor 'practical difficulty' test is as follows: 1. Property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner 2. The plight of the landowner is unique to the property and not created by the landowner 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood When seeking a variance, the Applicant must also prove that the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the Applicant currently operates a Home Occupation on the Subject Property. Based on review of a previous application for the Subject Property, it appears that the level of Home Occupation does not necessitate the issuance of Home Occupation Permit. Finally, it should be noted that the Applicant, Mr. Rob Schiller, is a sitting member of the Board of Adjustment. As such, Mr. Schiller has agreed to recuse himself from discussion and voting on the Application. Funding Source: All costs associated with the request are the responsibility of the Applicant.