3. BASR 08-09-2011REQUEST FOR ACTION
TO ITEM NUMBER
Board of Adjustments 3
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
Board of Adjustments Au st 9, 2011 Chris Leeseber ,Park Planner-Planner
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED B)/
Consider Request by Jerome and Jean Hendrickx, 21144 Twin erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er
Lakes Road for Variance -Accessory Structure Regulations, REVIEWED BY
Public Hearing -Case No. V 11-01
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the variance request, as illustrated on the drawings
dated 7/5/11, for the following reason:
1. The application does not meet all of the variance criteria set forth in Section 30-635
This item, if denied, will be reviewed by the City Council on August 15, 2011. That night, the Council
will be considering an amendment to the Ordinance as it pertains to variances. If that amendment is
approved, this application willbe reviewed by the Council on those new variance criteria.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The applicant purchased the property in 1994 with the four accessory structures. The existing garage
(nearest the house) is in a condition that is not suited for repair. The applicant has a daughter with
limited mobility and since that garage is the closest one to the house fox accessibility; they want to rebuild
the structure at a considerably larger size. Due to distance and garage door types, the other accessory
structures axe not practical for "garage" parking.
The applicant is requesting a variance to the number of allowed accessory structures and to the allowed
square footage.
Perthe ordinance, a variance is granted because of uniqueness of the land, not the use. Although staff
understands the reasoning behind the request, the condition of a family member cannot be the lone
support for granting a variance.
OVERVIEW
The subject property is 18.28 acres in size with four accessory structures totaling 14,876 square feet.
Existing Garage: 676 sgft (this is the structure they want to replace urith a 46x40 builclin~ 1,840 sgft)
Structure #1: 3,640 sgft
Structure #2: 5,700 sgft
Structure #3: 4,860 sgft
N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\Variance\V 11-O1 Hendrickx\V 11-01_BA.doc
The ordinance, for this property, allows only two detached accessory structures not to exceed 8,000
square feet of total attached and detached accessory structures.
There are currently four structures totaling 14,876 sgft.
They are requesting four structures totaling 16,040 sgft.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Based on a Supreme Court action in 2010, if a property can be used in a reasonable manner, a variance
should not be granted. The property has a reasonable use with the construction and occupancy of a
dwelling unit.
Variance Criteria
7. Literal en~rcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardsh~.
Literal enforcement will not cause undue hardship as the applicant has more accessory structures
than allowed by ordinance, even if the proposed building were removed.
2. The hardshin is caused by snecial conditions and circumstances which are neculiar to the nronerly and the structure
involved and which .are not characteristic o , or a~ilicable to. other lands or structure in the same area.
There are no special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the property.
3. The snecial conditions and circumstances are not a consequence o~the netitioner'.r own action or inaction.
There are no special conditions and circumstances to the property.
4. The literal annlication o~the nrovisions of this ordinance would denrive the~etitioner o~rights enioved by other~ironerties
in the same district under the terms o~,this ordinance.
The petitioner would not be .deprived any rights, as they have existing accessory structures.
S. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely a,~ect the health, sae or we~are of the residents o the city or the
neighborhood where the~iro~ierty is located and will be in keening with snirit and intent of the ordinance.
The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents
of the city.
Based on the Supreme Court action, the requested variance should be denied.
N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\Variance\V 11-01 Hendricl~c\V 11-01_BA.doc
PROPOSED APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (ifApproved by the City Council on 8-75-7 ~, this is for reference only)
Variance Criteria: A variance may be granted by the board if it finds that:
The proposed variance is in harmony avith the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and
In 2004, the City Council amended the ordinance as it pertained to accessory structure sizes.
At that time, accessory structure sizes on parcels five acres or larger were significantly
increased as shown:
5 acres to X588 =~,U~ 1~) sq. ft. attached and detached
10 acres to 4;598 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ sq. ft. attached and detached
20 acres to {>;998 1G.~(1(~ sq. ft. attached and detached
40 acres or more wed ~c,r rn e~cced ?".'~ cif the lc,r area
The subject property falls in the 10-20 acre category where the allowed square footage was
almost doubled in 2004. Prior to 2004, only 4,500 sq. ft. would have been allowed. Staff does
not feel that the proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
ordinance as the proposal is double the size (16,040 sq. ft.) of what was approved in 2004 and
has twice as many structures (four) as is currently allowed.
2. The proposed variance is consistent avith the City of Elk Kiver comprehensive plan.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Rural Residential category shows
the pattern of residential development outside of the Urban Service Area. Housing in these
areas consists of single-family .detached housing units. The area consists of a combination of
farmsteads, large lot rural subdivisions and cluster subdivisions.
3. The petitionerproposes to use the property in a reasonable manner notpermitted by the honing ordinance.
The petitioner is proposing doubling the size of an already non-conforming structure and also
maintaining twice as many allowed accessory structures.
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not a consequence of the petitioner's
ozvn action or inaction.
The petitioner has offered no factors indicating uniqueness of the property supporting the
variance. The petitioner bought the property with the existing structures, quantity and square
footages, as they are. It is unknown what the condition of the subject structure was in 1994
when the applicant purchased the property. The subject structure could have been
maintained. It appears that through inaction on part of the petitioner, the use of the garage
has been lost.
S. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The character of the locality will not be altered if the variance is granted.
N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\Variance\V 11-01 Hendrickx\V 11-01_BA.doc
ATTACHMENTS
^ Location Map
^ Applicants Narrative
^ Aerial of Property
^ Pictures of Existing Garage
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\Variance\V 11-01 Hendrickx\V 11-01_BA.doc
We purchased this property in 1994 from Bertold Mortiz
All of the outbuildings were existing buildings.The land
had been zoned Agricultural at the time of purchase.
The garage had been in poor shape when we moved
in,the service door has never worked and the floor in the
garage was in poor shape,as the concrete was crumbling.
The sill has completely rotted around the base of the
garage,due to water that collects because of poor
drainage.
Our Insurance Agent comments every time he has been
here that we should replace the garage as it is in bad
shape and all we are able to insure it for is $5,000
dollars.
In 2008 on Thanksgiving Day, our family was in a tragic
car accident that totaled our vehicle and left our
Daughter< Liz with a permanently disabled right knee.
After three knee surgeries,she has limited mobility in the
Right knee.
We need to rebuild this garage to accommodate Liz's
Limited ability to get around with her bad knee.The other
Buildings are not suitable for her to park her car,they are
some distance from the house and when it snows and
gets slippery out we have to worry about her slipping and
falling on the ice and snow.The new garage would be a
welcome addition as the old one is an eyesore and not
Worth trying to repair.We realize that we have all these
Other buildings but these are used for farm machinery
that we collect and they are not practical for using every
Day as they have large sliding doors that are hard to
open and shut.The new garage would also have a space
for Liz to do some physical therapy for her knee as we
have limited space in the house.The new garage will be
Built with the color matching the house and the trim will
also match.lt will be an attractive addition to the property
~,
°? ~~__/
WV ZS~E558 iLOZ/6Z/L '6mp~deW uoileM~\x8~upuaH 7,0-iL q\a~ueue~\sapj ase~\6uiuueld\luawdo~anad ,(3lunwwo~\sluawy~edad\:N
., .: ;aq
5 r ~~
s
~t
~~ ~+~ i II t ~1' i ~
~- ~
f,,
~ ~,: - `~,
~.
,,.
::
~.
F
Xis /
i
+~~ v
7
C 's--
t
t y
~~; ~ ~
1 f
iu `.' R
~,
~~ ~ +F.
s ~
~ , .., -
fir:
~'~~
w~
r' sa
, :~`
r
~.~ ,
l~ Fy7'
''"tlp +r
;1
H
~
~ ( 4
'
~
_
F,,
zze
'.
~ { Y. ~ i.
r
p.f~~
HL d
'
~~3
">
~~ ,
~.
'-~ +iA'
k,.,.1,
~. :+~.
k
!'
^
i
°;.
v, a
r ~ F YZ
!~
~~~
~; ~
;_+
~;
• ~
~:
~!
R ~ n
~M
~«_ ~ ,
..
_,: ;" ~.
~
~..
~ ,~~~.
~~
~~
;-
~
~~
~~`~ ,,
'~
9
~y r ~)
~X
' "-Mw3-. ~ ~' 1 .
- 3 ~.~.. sou ' . x ~ -.~ ~~-~
Y: P~'
-:i,: ~ i
1