Loading...
3.1. BASR 11-14-2000 ek,/ Item # 3.1. City of MEMORANDUM Elk ,. River TO: Board of Adjustments FROM: Scott Harlicker, Senior Plann DATE: November 14, 2000 SUBJECT: Case No. V 00-4 Request by Paul and Michelle Welinski for a Variance, Public Hearing Request Consider a request by Paul and Michelle Welinski for a variance to the 150 foot shoreline setback in order to construct a deck. Location • 9607 201St Avenue Zonin_q/Land Use R1a (Single Family Residential) / LR (Low Density Residential) Attachments • Location map • Site plan • Letter from applicant Overview The applicant's property is located on the north shore of West Twin Lake. West Twin Lake is designated by the DNR as a natural environmental lake. Structures on natural environmental lakes must be setback 150 feet from the ordinary high water level. The applicant is proposing to construct a deck that will be setback 132 feet from the shoreline. The original house was constructed prior to the shoreline ordinance in 1973.That • house included a deck that was at the same setback as the house. The deck was 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone (763) 441-7420 • Fax (763) 441-7425 Memo to Board of AdjustmentsN 00-4 November 14,2000 Page 2 • on the side of the house, not the rear facing the lake. In 1996 the original house was destroyed by fire. In 1997 the Building Department issued a building permit to rebuild the house in it's original location, about 150 feet from the shoreline. The new house plans included sliding glass doors and a deck. The deck on the new house was on the rear of the house facing the lake. The deck was not constructed at the time the house was rebuilt in 1997. The applicant applied for a building permit to construct the deck this summer and was informed that the deck did not comply with the 150 foot setback and they needed a variance. Variance 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 applicant's hardship is that the City allowed them to rebuild on the original foundation and the building permit issued in 1997 included a deck in the same location that is currently being proposed. The applicant feels they had a reasonable expectation that, even though the deck was not constructed at the same time as the house, they could build a deck at a future date as shown on the approved building permit. If they would have constructed the deck at the same time as the house, they would not be before the Board of Adjustment with this variance request. The hardship is peculiar to this property in that no other properties in this area are in the same situation as this one, in that the house was destroyed and they • were allowed to rebuild on the original foundation. S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\V004.DOC Memo to Board of AdjustmentsN 00-4 November 14,2000 Page 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. It is not unusual, in fact it is quite common, for lakeshore homes to have decks facing the lake. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. It is a consequence of relying on a previous building permit issued by the City. 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. Shoreline Management Ordinance The purpose of the ordinance is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, shorelines, and provide for the wise use of regulated land use. The continuation of existing residential land use and the construction of an attached deck can be considered wise use land use. According to the Shoreline Management Ordinance, when considering a variance request in shoreline areas, the Board shall also consider the following: • 1. Whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the variance; 2. whether the property is used seasonally or year-round; 3. whether the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations; and 4. the characteristics of development on adjacent properties. The applicant would not have reasonable use of the property without the granting of the variance. They would not be able to construct a deck as shown on their approved building plans. The property will be used year round. The variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations. The variance will allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. The proposed deck would be in character with the surrounding properties. • S:\PLANNING\S COTT\V004.DOC Memo to Board of AdjustmentsN 00-4 November 14,2000 Page 4 Recommendation • Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve this variance request to allow a 132 foot shoreline setback based on the following findings: 1. The applicant's hardship is that the City allowed them to rebuild on the original foundation and the building permit issued in 1997 included a deck in the same location that is currently being proposed. The applicant feels they had a reasonable expectation that, even though the deck was not constructed at the same time as the house, they could build a deck at a future date as shown on the approved building permit. If they would have constructed the deck at the same time as the house, they would not be before the Board of Adjustment with this variance request. 2. The hardship is peculiar to this property in that no other properties in this area are in the same situation as this one, in that the house was destroyed and they were allowed to rebuild on the original foundation. 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. It is not unusual, in fact it is quite common, for lakeshore homes to have decks facing the lake. • 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. It is a consequence of relying on a previous building permit issued by the City. 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. 6. The granting of the variance is needed for reasonable use of the property. 7. The variance is not being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations. 8. The proposed house would be in character with the surrounding properties. In order to ensure that the deck stays as unobtrusive as possible, staff would recommend that the variance include a condition that restricts enclosing the deck or conversion of the deck to a 3 or 4 season porch. i S:\PLANNING\S COTT\V004.DOC - -- - -- -ammi 209TH -il iiirl,. ..., 1 47:41 ii• iz 208TH -- Iletaln. 207TH 11111 -SE 206TH IN � 11A _- .., .. 205TH '� � lip 204H `�- , /03R0,� ! �� SITE i g11, Ala I D • �?��.■ „-•I �� 1 „ 1ST � `� � � 2DOTH CA 111 L•l ,99TH�� Ill ii 0 �� 'I 198TH• ,, ■l I����is,.��47.7 2. Estrimii i i W � 196TH 18,141146418 illeillill MI I Al . ._wi"Ibil 0 195TH PUD ` ; _ 194TH ini 1 �,YRI!R:.�- � .��T-' 193RD iii L!4 !I� 192N0 E.= m• rag/bi �� �-�1+-�,'i1 „ 191ST rk./ .N X LOCATION N itMAP•i1i4hjver 13065 Orono Parkway •P.O. Box 490 CASE: V 00-4 Elk River,MN 55330 i , X59'. 2/ - - Y 410 "4 �►, ,.- '�` �` ''`•� ,y,y - .f, VF • / .� S ; ' r . ■ \ c "\ . • - - 1 • - f t; `-•`6. ,, 6D• RAND." ` •- - rt_ _ _ - - ,.j.. . •• .., • .t I. .- • .•_ . - . . _ a t ►• -1• r* �t `\ t, s I4 b, I P, . 1.-4/ .0; �y •/•�',.. +- t� 48 1 (.� r ., .• J 1 2S. e Ili. • 2-CAR Ca c f. :- • 2 , 05 Ac ES - —' , '1 '.-t1-%), ` . w 4-A 69, 562 AFT'` I / 0 ro thtAl k r s 1 # � �: may_ tvD 1 N 1 `4.V ,U I r J, rn 5ra_,T E►•lky ( ,. f r) N • W•T• Cvl.kAsE 5 1 : 0 • to ,/ rr T _ •1 ci v) fR S7 ' �7 /if 132 1 35 - , t it I -- 9 -- >- 56 F+ • P01kT Of- (NN 46 I I�1 �— ��1 'v� \ . � .'-'4111V"‘'.-- At1/4_,— ,—NS1/4..f.\%--'1.)\..e—N s."/"\r",, IN ..1.-- WE.ST TWIN L Ak E `f `,..'^�.. THIS I S A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESFNTATir tj nr a cirovcv n.c - 411 I. The original house was built in 1973 before current setback guidelines were established. We purchased the home in February 1996. In May of 1996, several days before we were to close on the property, it was subject to an arson fire. After the fire it was decided we would tear the house down and rebuild using the existing foundation.We felt this was a reasonable and financially sound thing to do. II. The property we purchased consisted of 2 parcels of land. One parcel had an existing home with a deck.We feel it is a reasonable expectation to have a deck facing the lake. The rebuilt house plans were submitted to the building department with the sliding door and deck in place. The house was rebuilt in 1997 with the deck door facing the lake. III. We would like to be able to sit on a deck and enjoy a view of the lake. The original home was non-conforming to begin with, as current setback guidelines were not in place.We were not aware that the original home was non-conforming, or that there could be a possible problem adding a deck to our home at a later date. Since it was reasonable and financially wise to use the existing foundation, we did so. If we would have had to totally rebuild starting with a new foundation,we would have been made aware of the setback guidelines now in place, and we would have built accordingly. IV. The original homeowner determined the location of this house. The slight encroachment that the house has was prior to the current setback guidelines being in place. It was reasonable to reuse the existing foundation. • V. The house has been rebuilt according to current codes. The new septic system was placed according to current setback regulations for the lake. This is a small private lake. There are only 4 houses on the lake. During the summer months the house is barely visible from the lake. The deck is going to be nothing unusual.Just a great place to sit and enjoy the view and wildlife. • September 24, 2000 • • We would like to build a 16'x 18'deck on the backside of our house, facing West Twin Lake. Because of current setback guidelines,we are requesting a variance in the amount of 18'. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Paul and Michelle Welinski • •