4.0. BASR 06-22-1999 Item# 4.
'ty of MEMORANDUM
.1k River TO: The Board of Adjustments
FROM: Stephen Wensman, Planner
June 22, 1999
SUBJECT: Request by Karl Mortenson for a
Variance, Public Hearing
Case No. V 99-7
Request
Please consider a request by the applicant for a 15 foot variance from the
front yard setback requirements.
Location
12911 Orono Road, Elk River (Lot 1, Block 2, Heath's Addition).
• Zoning/Land Use
Rlc ( Single Family Residential) /MR (Medium Density Residential)
Attachments
• Location/zoning map
• Site plan
• Site plan with a structure that conforms to the city ordinance.
• Letter from applicant
• Heath's Addition Plat
Overview
The applicant requests a 15 foot variance from the front yard setback in order
to construct a 24 foot x 22 foot, two car garage to replace the existing one car
garage. According to City Ordinance, the property has two front yards and
structures are required to have a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way. The
applicant's existing one car garage is located roughly 6 feet from the Boston
Street right-of-way and is a legal non-conforming structure.
•
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD&Phone: (612)441-7420 • Fax: (612)441-7425
Memo to the Board of Adjustments/V 99-7
June 22, 1999
Page 2
• The property is also located on Lake Orono and subject to Shore Land
Ordinance restrictions. All structures are required to be 50 feet from the
ordinary high water level. The proposed location of the garage conforms to
this ordinance.
The existing house and garage are very old and were constructed prior to the
City Ordinance requiring two front yard setbacks. In Heath's Addition there
exists two other structures that do not meet the current setback
requirements; a house on Lot 1, Block 1, and a pole barn on Lot 2, Block 1.
Granting of Variance
Staff refers the Board of Adjustments 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.
When considering the variance request, staff concurs with the applicant that
locating the garage to conform with the ordinance would limit the normal use
of the applicants back yard. The garage would block views to the lake,
restrict the normal use of the applicants yard and proposed deck if the garage
were located in the middle of the yard. Staff and the applicant believe the
literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undo hardship for the
following five reasons (See the attached letter from the applicant).
•
s:\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v99-7.doc
Memo to the Board of Adjustments/V 99-7
June 22, 1999;
Page 3
• 1. Staff believes that the Literal enforcement will cause undo (unnecessary,
unavoidable, extreme) hardship because constructing a garage to conform
with the ordinance would restrict normal use of the back yard and block
views to the lake from the yard and house and effecting the character of
the property.
2. Staff believes that the hardship is caused by special conditions and
circumstances which are peculiar to the property or structure involved
because the property was platted and the house constructed prior to the
present ordinance requiring two front yard setbacks. The property is only
66 feet wide, rather than the 100 feet required of corner lots in new
subdivisions.
3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive
the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district
under the terms of this ordinance because Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Heath's
Addition have structures setback closer to the right-of way than allowed
by ordinance. Also, other properties have normal use of their properties
with unobstructed views to the lake.
4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the
• petitioner's own action or inaction. The existing garage needs to be
replaced, and a new two car garage is the current building standard.
There are no alternative locations for a garage except one that infringes
on the other normal uses of the property including having a view, deck,
and an open area.
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 because their
are other structures are already non-conforming and the proposed location
is more in line with the current ordinance than what exists at present.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments approve this request for a
15 foot variance from the front yard setbacks because the applicant meets the
following five conditions for granting a variance:
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.
s:\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v99-7.doc
Memo to the Board of Adjustments/V 99-7
June 22, 1999 -
Page 4
• 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.
•
•
s:\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v99-7.doc
ii. =ir.ili�iliir"I1�•n■.' �.. i-
. ' '\�rte- I\\ Ric Fl ??f1W I' I �1, R 1
,11ip ;r,■ „
1.:41 -_.'-,-1,'.1: -.,, -..,. LOCATION a.� P • • o .
►a
�•'• 1� {111■ 4.11:.".41. MIMI(
'� ■st P , I 1r __ .Q _ _ __ . ..
■.irk ,p..,,,\_`— :,- 4107�P AUDITOR . Imo` , UON' •. " '=-i0�l:Y.17-.�t..1 t,c'��.^ ,fir u ' rI1 �.a: •►,a1 �E
i LAW IA A.�.� ■�.•�� � Fib ��i � .. 0 ,�=- ,
„s I1 n� , •\: n Yom: �,
'r 1ATIt� I --" JI f 'vim "0!aaIl 9
E r fi �I, F�i7 ,r,'��iiill It !II... tltp�y 11'1') ,1111x. •i\.\ NC ;' Drlv1 P �'
1 ORONO ����. ;,���,''111G� INS:. ill amuck'' ' 1111':`li► \ ��': !;,� ►,, �` t
A---- -✓ • �' �i-,4,0ice.,, r M. !1 � �Ii:i 1 ii1�I L. ,,
/(*,� -.a• X1111,, • liv". �11IC .yl, , �. .. X11'i '4 L•
:,,,,...0.''' '*; 61A1111 10.411l/01jl '1111( -';::S� 2`-.� : I I�
_' f'` ` a�1t�. ��I�►//��f"'king!: ' Al . -- -\.: 1I1 m r.
scu��, - `j�= . `a�i�•+ . 'x1111��1��� ��+ '��' ra r:,ay7,_ Ju .14 iii
. 1A; ii. V t.•°...diltElif e- 41tV 1■5*-110 IL'AVIV e;11,110111111 '.. * \
:,- I' • ..- ....■"4117' .IV' ' ' iiih..t.: ii _;.,,
4
j.„...,,,,,,
sn.:„..„.. .,rt.
--.4tomr 1 �N AK \.. ‘e: '.
lk .
r011it
O
iiiiii � 40. 1787H
.„
c :)_._..................... ,_ .
. ,k../ --\( .
/ LOCATION N
City of . MAP
1 �
Elk
, er
Rlv
13065 Orono Parkway •P.O. Box 490 CASE: V 99-7
Elk River,MN 55330
\\ 4
•
1
-, ,v
tv e0-
1
1
kn
41-- . . N,o �a i AN
� o rF�� \SIC
•,,1
S n O }\
,...0t. .1 e
.4. .0 ,../.
v, . .
pk3
0. A 0" ..1
N \ 1 ) m
.z.. I 4 4; -L___ 1 .‘ .
0 ;'. , .
N riz!(■\ .
w e
o V\ A
to
> ,,x, .,, Ate.
w -
0
?\ o I n`
I 1 / \\ 4
G tl ' i a6 '
N I
0 CN
tk----
or-d.,0 'Pc(
•
f
I •. --- ■.....--, ..._, ,_. ..... _NL\:,„......7r. ...........................
I
;1 P I i , N -->.E--i_. -3 A
I
v 0
' ' Z
'4. w` $ Z
W1/43 0\ .
a
s I I; ( k a 0 t 2/
m•11`: L a
-. k ". • 0
I x r n
.1 m k
1.14 k
1.14 �' 0
I \ 0 'IN t
■ ha i I . i 1*\ A
O
0 h 1.
Li Ilk I
00'0.,. kW.. - -
• tm..4Fk-- --
May 24, 1999
The City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River,MN 55330
Subject: Application for Variance
Residence at 12911 Orono Road; Sec 32;Twp 33.0 Rg:26
Heaths Addition Lot 1 &Triangular Tract in Lot 2,Blk 2
This letter is to request a variance in order to replace an existing one car garage on the
subject property with a two car garage. A site plan of the property is attached that shows the lot
with the existing house and garage,and with the desired location for a new garage with a width of
24 feet and a length of 22 feet. The issue here is the setback of the new garage from the property
line that adjoins Boston Street. I am requesting a variance to allow the new garage to have a
setback from that property line of 15 feet. The City has told me the standard setback is 30 feet.
I would like to explain why locating the garage with a thirty foot setback would result in
an undue hardship. This is related to the fact that this lot is very close to Lake Orono. I have
drawn on the site plan the approximate location of the shoreline that abuts the property. There is
a zoning requirement that structures like garages be constructed no closer than 50 feet to the
shoreline on a sewered lot. I have drawn a line(labeled 50' line)that indicates how close a
structure can be to the lake.
The width of this lot is 66 feet. With a 30 foot setback and an anticipated garage length
of 22 feet,the maximum distance from the far side of the lot is 14 feet(i.e. 66'-22'-30').
Locating the new structure in this position would cause the following hardships:
A. The back of the house has a family room that was built with large windows to take
advantage of the view towards the lake. Putting the garage here would block the
existing lake view. It seems an undue hardship to deprive me of the view of the lake
that is enjoyed by other lakeshore owners in the area.
B. The new garage would have to be no farther than 16 feet from the house. I am
considering adding a backyard deck. The best location is at the back of the house
towards the lake,but a deck in this position would face and be immediately adjacent
to the new garage. Thus I would be prevented from using the preferred deck
location.
C. The garage would divide the backyard into two areas. The first would be a small area
near the house, and then the second would be a larger area near the lake. The two
would be connected by a narrow strip behind the garage, or else one has to cross the
driveway.
D. That portion of the backyard within 50-60 feet of the lake slopes towards the lake. I
would like to preserve as much of the flat portion of the backyard for grass as
possible.
The problems that arise here are somewhat unique to this lot because this is a corner lot
in a very old subdivision that predates construction of the present dam. The existing garage has a
setback of about six feet,and was no doubt located that close for the same reasons as those I have
just listed.
•
F • {
' r_ - E4TN ADPrnio
7' .'://
e , ,,,,,, ,j� %
. , . .2( . ...,,... .... I • .
•
y -, . .
•
I SAC
11//1/4, •
�' N
•
1
0
•
•
i �
•
•
Y
9- 3 - "'. •
•
•
C ��
,, i - s x
. 3
• \Y l
Y f
,. - .tom.
• .
•
•