Loading...
4.1. SR 05-04-1998'ity of River MEMORANDUM Item # 6.1. TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistank~ May 4, 1998 SUBJECT: Request by Art Johnson for Variance, Public Hearing Case No. V 98-1'1 Request Consider a request by Art Johnson for a variance to the minimum front yard setback for an accessory structure. Overview At the April 20th City Council meeting the Council postponed action on this request to allow the Council an opportunity to visit the site. Attached for your reference is a copy of the April 20th staff report. Recommendation It is recommended the City Council deny this variance request based on the following finding: Since there is an alternate location which meets the setback requirement and does not impact the irrigation system or landscaping, and the change in elevation between the proposed location and the alternate location is minimal, and the alternate location still provides for a substantial front yard, the applicant did not show that literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship. Should the Council decide to grant the variance request, the Council must find the following: 1. That the literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. 2. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which s:\planning\scott\v98 lcc2.doc 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 98-1 May 4, 1998 Page 2 are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. That 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. 4. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. That 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. s:\planning\scott\v98 lcc2.doc :y of E · .lver Item# 6.8. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council ~ Scott Harlicker, Planning Assista DATE: April 20, 1998 SUBJECT: Request by Art and Deborah Johnson for Variance, Public Hearing Case No. V 98-1 Consider a request for variance to the minimum front setback for an accessory structure. Location 9956 153rd Avenue NW, Elk River, Minnesota Zoning/Land Use Rla (single family residential) LR (low density residential) Attachments · Location Map · Site Plan · Letter from Applicant · A statement from the neighbors in support of the variance Overview. Art and Deborah Johnson are proposing to construct a detached garage near the front of their property. The proposed building would be 24 x 30 feet and would be located approximately 26 feet from the pavement edge, 12 feet from the right-of-way. Rla zoning requires a 35 foot front setback for accessory structures. This request therefore constitutes a 23 foot variance. The applicant indicated the additional garage space is necessary for storage of a boat, trailers, and other possessions currently stored outside on the 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to Mayor and City Corn f 98-1 April 20, 1998 Page 2 property. The proposed garage will be sited such that existing sprinkler heads need not be relocated. The proposed setback from the street is comparable to the neighbors' shed setback and the front yard setback of the neighbor's house. In their letter, the Johnsons also point to their home's elevation, approximately 5 feet above the street. It is their contention that the further from the street the proposed garage will be located, the higher it will sit. Therefore, the applicants argue a proposed location near the street will' result in the least obtrusive alternative. It should also be pointed out that this is a dead-end street with only two other homes beyond the Johnsons'. The City Council previously considered and denied this apphcation on November 17, 1997. The applicant was unable to attend that meeting and requested that he be able to reapply for the variance. Attached for your reference is a copy of the minutes from the November 17th meeting. Variance Requirement~o Staff refers the Council to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances for the five standards to consider when reviewing a variance. A variance.may be granted only if it meets the following five conditions: Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are pecuhar to the property and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. 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. o 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 hardship seems to be the apphcant's desire to maintain a large open front yard. Staff agrees that placing the garage on the west side of the property would not be practical. However, there is room just south of the s:\planning\scott\v98- lcc.doc Memo to Mayor and City Com. J 98-1 April 20, 1998 Page 3 proposed location that would work (see alternate location plan). Placing the garage in this location would still leave about 60 feet between the house the proposed garage. Staff does not beheve that an undue hardship has been shown. The two properties to the west have buildings with similar setbacks. It does not appear the proposed location would be out of character when compared to those properties. The property to the east, the Lind's, has a detached garage similar to what the apphcant is proposing which complies with the required setbacks. Board of Adiustment Meeting At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on March 24, 1998, no one spoke at the pubhc hearing. The Johnsons explained that meeting the setback requirement would reduce the size of their front yard, would reduce the value of their property and would be aesthetically unappealing. They also introduced a letter from the neighbors in support of the variance. Since there is an alternate location that meets the setback requirements and does not impact the irrigation system or landscaping, and the change in elevation between the proposed location and the alternate location is minimal, and the alternate location still provides for a substantial front yard, the Board felt that the applicant did not meet the criteria for hardship and voted to deny the apphcation. Recommendation It is recommended the City Council deny this variance request based on the following finding: Since there is an alternate location which meets the setback requirement and does not impact the irrigation system or landscaping, and the change in elevation between the proposed location and the alternate location is minimal, and the alternate location still provides for a substantial front yard, the applicant did not show that hteral enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship. s:\planning\scott\v98-1cc.doc ... . 161 ~'f '"'~'" ,~,~ '",.,\ ' X, Xx ..... ' .. ~ ! ,.,~.~ I ,~, -- ,&/ -x,./ . '~ LOCATION Elk River. M.N Arthur L. and Deborah S. Johnson 956-153rd Ave. N.W. Elk River, MN 44330-6201 To whom it may concern: We would like to build a 24 ft. x 30 ft. garage on the northern portion of our lot located at the above address. We would like to build this garage on a location that is set between the existing heads of our sprinkling system. The northern edge of the garage would be approximately 26 feet from the edge of the roadway. The garage would be somewhat concealed by eleven large pine trees and two maple trees that are growing on the N.W. portion of our lot. The garage will be built on what is now the eastern edge of our vegetable garden. This location would also allow us to continue to have a garden in the area that is west of the garage. The garden would receive sun exposure from the south and west while still being serviced by the existing sprinkler heads. The major reason for the request for the variance however, is to keep the garage out of the front yard as much as possible. Our house and existing garage is on a rather steep incline from the .,ad (153rd Avenue). As a matter of fact, the floor of the garage is approximately five feet higher than the road. The closer the garage would be moved to the house, the higher up the incline it would move and the more obtrusive it would become. By moving the projected garage up the hill, it would also become more within the line of vision of my neighbors to the west (Buelows and Burkes). As it is moved up the hill, it also becomes more observable from the east as it is not concealed by the trees. The projected garage located 26 feet from the road would also be consistent in distance from the road with structures owned by the Buelows and Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke has a storage shed that is located approximately nine feet from the road and the corner of Buelows house is located approximately 27 feet from the road as it ends at the northwest corner of Mr. Burke's property. It should also be pointed out that Burkes and Buelows are the only two residences that use the road as it goes past our house. In some ways the roadway is more comparable to an alley. This is the second time we have sought a variance to build this garage. On October 28, 1997 I appeared before the Elk River Planning Commission to request a twenty three foot variance to the f,nnt setback of our property to build a garage. ! presented to you the information that is outlined in ..,e memorandum prepared by Brady Halversen, planning intern. Once we completed our request and answered a couple of questions, the public hearing portion ended and the Planning Commission discussed the situation and made the decision to deny our request. The main reason given for denying the request was the fact that we own a relatively large lot and garage could be built on the northwest side of the lot, in the area that is marked with the broken lines. Since your recommendation came after the public hearing had ended, we did not have an opportunity to explain that the recommendations would not work due to the reasons listed below. 1) The garage would be placed in an area that would be less aesthetically pleasing to tour neighbors. 2) The buried natural gas lines and telephone lines are in the location of what would be the driveway and we would not want to pave over them in case of a future problem. 3) The drain field is currently located where the garage and driveway would be placed and we would not wish to build anything on top of that area. 4) An electric utility pole is located in the area that would become a driveway to the new garage. 5) We would be forced to destroy a portion of the sprinkler system by placing the garage over one head and the driveway over another head, and I would have to have an irrigation specialist move the sprinkler heads west of the proposed garage and driveway. 6) A bed of ten rose bushes and peonies would be covered by the driveway 7) The location of shrubs and rhubarb would have to be changed. 8) A second driveway would have to be constructed and it would take up a large amount of green space in our yard. 9) A garden that I have always maintained would need to be planted on the east side of the garage depriving it of the westerly sun. We take pride in our home and yard an we spend a great deal of time in maintaining both. We strive to make our property attractive and pleasing not only to ourselves,but to our neighbors as well. We feel that we have arranged our yard and landscaped it in a way that is pleasing to the eye and have made an environmentally appropriate use of the space. All of the above reasons would cause more problems than varying the setback at the front of the yard. We truly believe that the location we have suggested is the most sensible Iocatic'-i, is the most aesthetically pleasing, and is in the best interest of ourselves and our neighbors. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Arthur L. Johnson We the undersigned neighbors, support the original request from the Johnsons for a variance to .,tbacks in constructing their garage, and also for the Johnsons to build the garage on a site near the existing driveway on their property. This, the original site in their r_.equest, wou. l¢l be the most satisfactorytous,. .~;~~ ~~_..,.~/. ~ '- .~ .~ City Council Minutes November 17, 1997 Page 7 6.2. 6.3. Request by Art and Deborah Johnson for Variance, Public Hearinq Co. V 97-17 City Planner Steve Ach indicated that Art and Deborah Johnson have requested a 23 foot variance to the minimum front setback for an accessory structure at 9956 - 153rd Avenue NW. Steve Ach reviewed staff report. He indicated that the Board of Adjustments recommended denial of the request because the applicant did not meet the criteda for hardship and that there were other alternatives available to locate the garage. Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY ART AND DEBORA JOHNSON, V 97-17, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: SINCE THERE IS AN ALTERNATE LOCATION WHICH MEETS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND DOES NOT IMPACT THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM, THE APPLICANT DID NOT SHOW THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Rezoninq Request from C2 to Cl by Jerry Smith, Public Hearinq Case No. ZC 97-7 City Planner Steve Ach indicated that Jerry Smith is requesting to rezone certain property from C2 (Office District ) to C1 (Central Commercial) at 907 Main Street. Steve Ach reviewed the staff report on this issue. He indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning. Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. Clifford Donais, 906 Lookout Place, requested the Council to deny the zone change. Mr. Donais indicated his opposition is due to traffic, noise, garbage and screening. Jerry Smith responded to some of the concerns of Mr. Donais. There being no other comments Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Representative Vicki Sullivan indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval as the zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Farber indicated his concern that this is a residential area and some C-1 uses could be incompatible with residential neighbors. Steve Ach suggested that issues of lighting and buffering of residential property could be addressed with the zone change. jo , ,,q ¢-,(,l e '3'-re eg J