3.3. BASR 03-24-1998 {
Item# 3.3.
ofs MEMORANDUM
EIK
•
River TO: Board of Adjustments
FROM: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan
DATE: March 24, 1998
SUBJECT: Request by Art Johnson for Variance,
Public Hearing Case No. V 98-1
Request
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
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
property. The proposed garage will be sited such that existing sprinkler
• heads need not be relocated. The proposed setback from the street is
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490• Elk River,MN 55330 •TDD &Phone: (612) 441-7420 •Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-1
March 24, 1998
Page 2
• 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'.
Variance Requirements
Staff refers the Board 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:
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
2. 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.
• 3. 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. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the
petitioner's own action or inaction.
5. 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 applicant'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
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 believe 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
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-1.doc
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-1
March 24, 1998
Page 3
• those properties. The property to the east, the Lind's, has a detached garage
similar to what the applicant is proposing which complies with the required
setbacks.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of Adjustment deny this variance request
based on the following findings:
1. 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.
411
•
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-1.doc
. - ..- .. .mod
I i 156TH
3
- - - .. 1
' �; 165TH
W►V
i
4;- 154tH
by
f .
-"J - . ._ - - 163RD
I
1
162ND
E
\ '
e,`�, '\ rJ ..._ ... . _ 161ST
\ ;:// c I
_N
- _ / ^�
160714�''
•.� F4 ;/ \
4� '..'I- 4/ �
" \159714 \ 155TH
158TH / , 158TH
/
C -�G S x 4•.9,
Q, 757TH
t• Mar
I� 1
g
1567H _ v �CY4® 156TH ier
0 R 155714 \ _ 155TH
•154TH * 1 ...+ ' ,�� 154Th
S
S �� itl( fi
153RD 4 _ �/ 153RD
ei
1
g iSZNO� �'�' I i •_ 152140
n Z
LOCATION o g s
g g
rk/ *( .
\\Li LOCATION N
City of 1 :. MAP
lic 1k7
River
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 CAS E• V 98- 1
Elk River, MN 55330
Sc.
e/o
vi
pctrke 's
---------- ' l__--'
Arthur L. and Deborah S. Johnson
9956-153rd 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
Wad (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
front setback of our property to build a garage. I presented to you the information that is outlined in
like 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
Sarge 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.
Y p p
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 location, 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