Loading...
6.1. SR 11-17-1997.y of iver MEMORANDUM Item TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council ! Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan~~ November 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Request by David Tollefson for Variance, Public Hearing Case No. V 97-16 Request Consider a request by David Tollefson for a 15 foot variance to the required 20 foot side yard setback Location 17713 Cleveland Street; Lot 21, Block 1, Hidden Creek Country Estates Zoning/Land Use Rla (Single Family Residential)/LR (Low Density Residential) Attachments · Location map · Site plan · Letter from applicant Overview Mr. Tollefson is proposing to construct a 24' X 27' (648 s.f.) detached garage. The applicant would like to place it 5 feet from the side property line. A 20 foot setback is required. The property is fiat with a United Power easement bisecting the property into a front portion and a rear portion. The existing house and attached garage are located in the center of the lot in front of the easement; the proposed garage will be located to the west of the house, also in front of the easement. At the present time there are no structures on the other side of the easement, in the rear of the lot. Because the easement is located towards the front of the lot, it limits the location of structures that 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to the Mayor and City Council/V 97-16 November 16, 1997 Page 2 are placed in the front portion of the property. There are no physical constraints which prevent the applicant from complying with the side yard setback. Variance A variance may be granted only if it meets the following five conditions: 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. o The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. o The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance. The applicant has indicated in his letter that the reason he can not meet the setback requirement is that the garage would be to close to the house making it appear cluttered and squeezed in. Meeting the 20 foot setback would place the garage 8 feet from the existing attached garage; a 6 foot separation between the detached garage and the house is required by the building code. Placing the garage in back of the power line easement would require a driveway 125 feet longer than what would be needed if the garage was constructed in the proposed location, which would be difficult to keep clear in the winter. The applicant could build an addition to the existing garage, comply with the setback requirement and not need a variance. If the proposed garage was constructed as an addition to the existing attached garage, it would be setback 28 feet from the property line. s:\planning\scott\v9716cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City Council/V 97-16 November 16, 1997 Page 3 The applicant did not indicate why he needs the detached garage. It might be possible to design the garage so that it is narrow and longer thereby reducing the cluttered appearance and size of the variance. Board of Adjustment Meeting At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on October 28th , no one spoke at the public hearing. The applicant explained that he needed the garage to store personal property. He also explained that it would cost 3 times as much to construct an addition to the existing garage than it would to construct the proposed detached garage. He also said that he could reduce the width of the garage from 24 to 22 feet but did not want to place it any closer to the house. The Board noted the UPA power easement and the constraints it placed on the property, but they did not believe that wanting an uncluttered appearance was grounds for a hardship and voted 6 to I to deny the variance request. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council deny this variance request based on the following findings: THE APPLICANT DID NOT SHOW THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP IN THAT THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS WHICH PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD s:\planning\scott\v9716cc.doc LOCATION 1B2ND !78T~ 176T~ ~ 75'T~ ~72ND __ ~7~ST !70T~ 168T~ ~67T~ ,. I I LOCATION MAP 1657 -- CLEVEC. AND, sT. INCH PJf:3E \ CAIr~D : NO. ~ I~EL L I/~' ZNCH OPEN PZPE \ ! t 2£T BLOCK HOUSE 20A 2~A ! ~ EXIgTING DRA~NF.rELD I~ UNI TED POWER ASSOCIATION EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT NO. 131589 ~x £3 SET 5/2 INCH BY 14 iNCH IRON MONUMENT OVER 4 FT. REBAR ..... ~ ~, BDVY, PO, BOX 179 CELLO, MINNESOTA 55362 I 24 ' 25T 2', DRAkiN BY .' /6 2 /2 /3 /7 /8 /9 20A 20T DRAINAGE E A S MEN T 2/T -I 22 T 80000 feel ,4 23 ol S.E_. , oO '" 25T ~ /7 /4 15T §10.15 .... X /6 P - N/'e.~ve- E I ooe. e'~ - - - ,& T ~ Explanation for Request for Variance David L. Tollefson Our family settled in Elk River because of the appeal of open country living on a lot with a view of surrounding wet lands. By following the existing setback ordinance, we could not put a garage where we would like to, because the garage would be too close to the house, making it appear cluttered and squeezed in. We are requesting a five foot setback from the side of the property line. This would give a more appealing "curb appeal" and would fall in very nicely with a line of existing trees on our lot. The alternative of putting a garage in back of the power lines would create a need for an extremely long driveway. Winter snow removal makes this option unfeasible, and having the garage out back would not look as attractive. The land owners adjacent to ours do not use the portion of the lot from the open ditch to our lot, because that portion is not easily accessible to them (they have to access it from the road). We had inquired into buying that portion of their land, but because of the costs involved, decided against it. However, they have no objection with a structure close to the property line. Because of the possible 60 day application process and full schedule of contractors, the earliest that building could occur would be next spring.