BOA 09-12 Howard Tauer Centerline Setback Variance 07/11/12 Request for an after-the-fact variance to reduce the required centerline setback from 130 feet to 65 feet for a partially constructed deck located in the Agricultural Zoned District in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 11, Decoria Township. Applicant Howard Tauer 59352 185 th Street Mankato, MN 56001 Request and Location The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance to reduce the required centerline setback from 130 feet to 65 feet for a partially constructed deck. Said property is located in the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, Decoria Township. Legal Description That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 107 North, Range 26 West, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, described as: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 11; thence North 01 degrees 45 mintues 43 seconds West, (assumed bearing), along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 11, a distance of 290.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 23 seconds West along a line parallel with the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 11, a distance of 751.30 feet; thence South 01 degrees 45 minutes 43 seconds East, along a line parallel with the east line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 11, a distance of 290.00 feet to a point on the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 11; thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 23 seconds East, along said south line, 751.30 feet to the point of beginning. Zoning The property is zoned Agricultural. General Site Description and Project Proposal The property includes an existing building site with a dwelling and pole shed. The character of the general area is primarily agricultural with the majority of the neighboring land in row crop production. The applicant is presenting an after-the-fact variance request to reduce the required centerline setback from 130 feet to 65 feet for an after-the-fact building permit for a partially constructed deck located on the south side of the home. The deck is nearly complete with the exception of the rail, seating and steps. The applicant indicated that he had discussed the possibility of needing a construction permit for the deck with a neighbor but the neighbor had advised the applicant that a permit was not required for decks.
BOA 09-12 Howard Tauer Centerline Setback Variance 07/11/12 Existing Land Use within 1/4 Mile North: Crop land South: CSAH 15 and crop land. East: Crop land West: Crop land. Access No change in access points is proposed. Existing access is to and from CSAH 15. NATURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION Topography The topography of the area of the proposed structure is fairly flat. Floodplain The proposal is not within a floodplain area. Shoreland The property does not include shoreland. Township Review The applicant has met with the Township. An email from the Township dated June 20, 2012 does not specifically give any recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. However, the applicant has fulfilled their obligation to inform the Township of the request. Environmental Health Review See attachment A-4. Applicable Sections of the County Land Use Ordinance Sec. 24-113. Height, yard and lot area, width and depth regulations. (b) Front yard regulations There shall be a front yard setback of not less than 130 feet from the centerline of all federal, state, county and county-state aid highways Sec. 24-48. Board of Adjustment. (d) Powers (1) Powers. The board of adjustment shall have power to grant a variance or an appeal to any of the provisions of this chapter to the extent of the following and no further: a. To vary or modify the strict application of any of the regulations or provisions contained in this chapter in cases in which there are practical difficulties in the way of such strict applications; no variance or modification of the uses permitted within a district shall be allowed, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (f) Findings required. (1) Enumeration. The board of adjustment shall not grant an appeal or variance unless they find the following facts at the hearing where the applicant shall present a statement and evidence in such form as the board of adjustment may require:
BOA 09-12 Howard Tauer Centerline Setback Variance 07/11/12 (a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land, building or use referred to in the appeal that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity. (b) That the granting of the application will not result in any material adverse effect on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the area adjacent to the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area adjacent to the property of the applicant. Applicant s Statement of Practical Difficulty Please see attachment A-5: Letter of Practical Difficulty In summary: to accommodate an after-the-fact construction permit for a partially constructed 16 foot x 22 foot deck, a variance is needed. The deck will serve as a primary handicap access to the dwelling s main floor as well as a sun deck. The relocation of the deck would result in major expense and major structural changes to the home to accommodate a handicap access elsewhere. Opinions Staff has developed the following opinions: 1. That there are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the land, building or use referred to in the appeal that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity. There appears to be sufficient room on the east side of the front porch to create a new entrance to meet accessibility recommendations that would not encroach further into the required centerline setback than the existing structure. 2. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry recommends a 58 by 58 landing for right angle landings or 58 by 92-98 inch landing for 180 degree landings. It is the opinion of the staff that an alternative design to accommodate the need for accessibility could have been used and would require a considerably smaller variance request. Staff advised the applicant of this opinion. The applicant showed little interest in the option proposed and advised staff of his intent to proceed with the variance as originally proposed. Recommendations Staff recommends denial of the request to reduce the required centerline setback to the center of the CSAH 15 ROW from 130 feet to 65 feet for the purpose of allowing an after-the-fact construction permit for a partially constructed deck on the home, with the following conditions: 1. The construction that has already taken place be removed prior to September 1 st, 2012. Attachments A-1 Site Location A-2 Site Map A-3 Site Map A-4 Environmental Health Comments A-5 Applicants Letter of Practical Difficulty A-6 Variance Checklist A-7 After-the-Fact Variance Checklist
Attachment A-1 General Location Map Site
A-2 Site Plan 0 40 80 Feet -\ N Disclaimer: This map was created using Blue Earth County's GIS and was created for specifìc internal County uses. lt is intended to be used for reference purposes only and does not represent a land survey. No liability is assumed for the accuracy of the data delineated herein, either expressed or implied by Blue Earth County or its employees.
A-3 Site Plan Site 2009 Aerial Photo Disclaimer: This map was created using Blue Earth County's GIS and was created for specific internal County uses. It is intended to be used for reference purposes only and does not represent a land survey. No liability is assumed for the accuracy of the data delineated herein, either expressed or implied by Blue Earth County or its employees.
A-4 Environmental Health Review BLUE EARTH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE S Government Center, 410 South Fifth Street P.O. Box 3566, Mankato, Minnesota 56002-3566 Phone: (507) 304-4381 Fax: (507) 304-4431 Environmental Health Section - Planning Application Reviews Date Printed: July 02,2012 Permit Number: PL2012069 Property Owner: TAUER HOIVARD F & KARLA J Applicant: TAUER HOWARD F & KARLA J Parcel Number: R35.14.1 1.400.004 File ID: BOA 09-12 Application Description: Request for an after-the-fact variance to reduce the required center-line setback to the centerline of CSAH I 5 from I 30 feet to 65 feet for the construction a I 6 foot by 22 foot deck. The property is zoned Agricultural and is located in the SE l/4 of the SE l/4 of section I l, Decoria Township. Status: Complete - Comments Received Septic Review Comments: The septic system was installed 7/11107 and has a valid certificate of compliance until 7l1lll2. The location of the deck in question is not located in in the the setback area for the septic system. Status: Complete - Comments Received Well Review Comments: The enclsoed site plan indicates one in-use well and one sealed well, unique #H269144, properly sealed by Denn Well in 2009. The after+he-fact construction of a deck does not appear to have any negative impacts to the known well situation on this property. grant0612812012 3:14 PM Status: Wetland Review Complete - Comments Received Comments: A review of the Blue Earth County soil survey indicates that the after-the-fact deck lies on soils from the LeSueur clay loam soil series (239) which is not considered a hydric soil. Based a review ofthis and other resources the after-the-fact deck does not appear to negatively impact any known wetlands onthis property. granf 06128120123:18 PM
A-5 Letter of Practical Difficulty
A-6 FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING/DENYING A VARIANCE Name of Applicant: Howard Tauer Date: July 11 th, 2012 Variance Application #BOA 09-12 Parcel #R35-14-11-400-004 A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a practical difficulty exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria: 1. Is the variance in harmony with the intent of the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and State Shoreland Management Rules? Yes ( ) No ( ) 2. Without the variance, is the owner deprived of a reasonable use of the property? Yes ( ) No ( ) 3. Is the alleged practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? Yes ( ) No ( ) 4. Were the circumstances causing the practical difficulty created by someone or something other than the landowner or previous landowners? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. Will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? Yes ( ) No ( ) 6. Does the alleged practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? Yes ( ) No ( ) Facts supporting the answer to each question, above, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with of the Blue Earth County Shoreland Management Ordinance. APPROVED ( ) DENIED ( ) DATED: Chairperson, Board of Adjustment
A-7 After-the-Fact Checkl ist If the application is for an after-the-fact variance, the board should also consider the tbllowing: l, Has the construction been cornpleted? Why or wlry not? 2, Does it appear the applicant has acted in good faith and tried to comply with the Ordinance? Why or why not? 3. Are there similar structures in the area? Why or why not? 4, Does the applicant's burden of cornplying witlt the Ordinance out weigh the County's benefit of enforcing the Oldinance? Why ot' why not? IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE "YES'" AND APPLICANT MET THE CRITERIA FOR A VARAINCE UNDEIì THE SIX "PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY" STANDARDS ABOVE, AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARAINCE MAY BE GRANTED.