3.1. BASR 02-24-2004 Item # 3.1.
411
lEik
River
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustments
4044
FROM: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner4
DATE: February 24, 2004
Subject: Case No. VO4-0I Request by Mikhail Ephsteyn for Variance
Request
Consider a request by Mikhail Ephsteyn for a variance to front yard setback and shoreline
• setback.
60-Day Rule
To comply with the 60-day rule,without an extension,this item needs action by March 25,
2004.
Location
Lot 2, Block 6,Westwood Subdivision
Zoning/Land Use
Ric (Single Family Residential) /MR(Medium Density Residential)
Attachments
• Location Map
• Site Plan
• Diagram showing buildable area.
• Letter from Applicant
• Memo from Rebecca Haug, Environmental Technician
•
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 04-01
February 24,2004
Page 2
• Overview
The applicant is requesting a variance to the 30-foot front yard setback to allow a setback of
10.5 feet from the right-of-way for 189th Avenue.He is also requesting a variance to the 50-
foot setback from Lake Orono to allow a setback of 39 feet.
The property is an undeveloped residential lot with frontage on Lake Orono. The lot is 75
feet wide and about 120 feet deep. It has frontage on Concord Street and also has frontage
on the right-of-way for 189th Avenue. 189`1'Avenue at this location has never been
constructed and the right-of-way dead-ends at Lake Orono.There is a storm sewer that is
located in the right-of-way.The property is wooded and slopes toward the lake.
Attached is a diagram showing the buildable area if the required setbacks are met.The
buildable area is 70'by 35'. If the property line setbacks are met,the 50'shoreline setback is
also met.
Analysis
Variance to the Front Yard Setback
In order to grant a variance from the literal interpretation of the ordinance,the following
five conditions must be met:
• 1. Literal enforra'neat of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
Literal enforcement would not allow the applicant to construct the type of house he
would like.However,the by orienting the house differently and building a different style
home,the setback requirements could be met. Staff does not feel that literal enforcement
of the ordinance would cause undue hardship.
2. The hardship is causal by special conditions and cirtumstances,which are peculiar to the properly and
the structure incolial and which are not characteristic of or applicable to,other lands or structure in the
same area.
The property is similar in size to the other lots in Westwood Subdivision.Most of the
lots are 75'X 120',including the corner lots. The dimensions of this lot are not peculiar
or special but are characteristic of other lands in this area.However,what is unique
about this property is the fact that the street right-of-way that is the subject of this
variance will not be constructed.
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 or finance.
The literal application of this ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights
enjoyed by other properties in this area. Other lots of similar size and dimensions have
• been developed. The applicant would have to design a house fit to fit on this lot
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\V 04-01 Epshteyn\VO4-01PC3-23.doc
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 04-01
February 24,2004
Page 3
• 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction.
The special circumstance unique to this property is the fact that the front yard setback is
measured from the right-of-way from 189th Street,which will probably never be
constructed.
S. The zetriancewill not be injurious to or ad rely affect the health,safety oruelfar?of the residents of the
city or the neighlorhoodzehere the property is located and will be in keepingwith spirit and intent of the
ordinance:
The request would not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity.
Shoreline Variance
Attached is a memo from Rebecca Haug, Environmental Technician, outlining reasons for
granting the shoreline variance.
Recommendation
Technically,staff feels the applicant does not meet all five criteria needed for granting a
variance.However,the 30-foot front yard setback is intended to provide for a unified front
yard along a street. In this case,the setback is being applied to a street right-of-way which,in
• reality,will never be constructed. In the future it may be used for public access to the lake.
The right-of-way really functions as a side yard between the applicant's property and the
adjacent house. If it is viewed as a side yard,the applicant would comply with the required
10-foot side yard setback.
The Building and Environmental Department recommends granting the variance to the 50-
foot shoreline setback.
•
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\V 04-01 Epshteyn\VO4-01PC3-23.doc
. ®��L \It,,y OUSTRI
AL BL p.
Is� i--- IIIADD.TIBN
4TH EDIT • r
F'S 'I 1l
Aiii
tiroill' �I��ADD. =' "Il'‘'s).°�°11!� .Lit P= SITE
!I e�'� ill..� -�
1, /Pali 4 _1 ,• -1'„ 1.11,1,k, .. „ ....:04,„
.00,00„,,,
pli ma „hi AO itd_EZERsp,m cum Sirf_je mg 4ze, /1/6' ..iwaiwArri:.4
f -∎ , 0 t= mom MIN • e- m 4 ♦j��. .
k!.,ar IN 6111.1 Els , ipAor, alio 4/1 ,,,,,ii .00
� Vi �• Il 101 ih s rry v �1
II
_ �� •
iii 1,11,...„.‘1111,>41111.!_ _ _ INK ________......■■ ----... ..... .41.---....lialaniwir' - _: .azippir ________--- ...-.7----I •plilliriv-14\s„?._0*N ., 4.,,,R4
PARK �i1_ ` •'t� 11.- .A,'miumir ill 1111
�� � li?,0 f04/
. II1 �.• i. $�■
..._
...„„,kw O l
mgt
ROAD ORONO
�.'QS CEMETERY I
SOFTBALL Z���1>0 `
PARK �,� \
li, 0 �
.. (>\"...1, 1, Arr / ' :
LI (', .1. "fr / *ova p ���
4of Location Map N
River-- Case Number: V 04-01 MIKHAIL EPSHTEYN
lm gcyta &d 10 gnc, i
Aft
• T ., _ . ,
Amo 4A* oevt mprAto T AH?* m
(763) 421-9126 ' r
m
SURVEY FOR: Mikhail c& Maya Epshteyn »es' "NgW°oa uwc DAVro"41414912
DESCRIPTION: WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION, Lot 2, Block 6 together with that part
of Lot 1 , Block 6 lying westerly of Lot 2, & lying north of the Westerly
extension of the south line of said Lot 2, City of Elk River, Sherburne
County. Minnesota.
o Denotes Iron .Monuments (found & set) PROPOSED
x Denotes Spikes set for Bldg. Control TOP FOUNDATION ELEV. �j'c:°f `�
xxx.x Denotes Existing Ground Elevations GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. ', r/
(xx.x) Denotes Proposed Final grades LOWER FLOOR ELEV. C° 7< •C'
�
, U NOTE: Verify all proposed grades and diinersions with all
actual f.i n a 1 plans.
,
2
< ` '
—N, - e7z,
"'*-..."ate �' t�.l /l __ ----- __
i - -
\s ',
c, , ,yi 1 r /
i
' f T 1 iii !
K L�
,
1 /
i
F
75.a .
_ 011.
;M l Lv ,,b t
(8 8 / 5 _ ,olA
10,5 N ?S__.0 \; X0.5 "0
■. `\
#° K ° \ (31 4:, L /t- , ,,, i e
i
, \ f' 1 i
;) I I .'
\ ,-4..re'i \,,,, , 1 , /(/
k
' , t> \ ,)-) ki,1 tl\ \ ' k. \ ,,t,iN 0 F. -) ‘44 . 1 )
4 (l(t h \u,P 4 O if 1 lhl I \-
O ci vt \ `\ - r
•i\a4 8rro sr;,7 8 16- 4
t.c� % \ )
1 in 0 1�
tip '�
f
U � Laa odi.
ei �(eg4,C` � � (e) 410
76.0
Pg
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
of Minnesota. . Dated January 8, 2004
BY ' .flr►t.o,,0 it `1•LA , Minnesota License No. 12267
AgworeES+ONAL LANO 31 MRVlf V t 411
A/0$.../010 04CletlOPMeiNT crass t,v'J.':,
(763) 421-9126
1!121 VWEWt OO LAWE LIA V e,
SIIRVI.l' FOR: Mi kha i I ' ? "Playa f.pslateyra
DESCRIPTION: WESTWOO[) SUBDIVISION, Lot 2, Block h together with that part
of fait. 1 . Block 6 lying westerly of Lot 2, & lying, north of the Westerly
r' tc nsion of the south line of said Lot 2 . City of Elk River, Sherl,trrnc'
(.,-)„fit\ . Minnesota .
o Denotes Iron Monuments ( found & set ) PROPOSED
v f)c'not_es Spikes ret for Bldg. Control
'1Of FOUNDATION ELEV. _
GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
Y;:>:. Denotes Existing Ground Elevations '
_ r
) � t ` >
(_) ' NOTE : Verify all proposed graces and dimonsinns with all
�.,� � V_—_._
actual final plans. °--
•
{
'I ) (,
t
L', i t I
`Jj l �f
f ,l � ' I�� / e
\1
f � i w
i J i
t ' I i i l
1/ d I ty, ./_
/ $7 (0
a ' (
/
x rt t P+/
S
I ) ;
7
u,
0 fi :-114 \ ,
`� X 0,5 N ,` U \ \ /0.S ,'
I Do I et C, 11 \ ,
lorapte
tk. k .s3 \ '' ()Oil '. \ ' - 1 ..„,"i _
1 A ts.e 4 N ' , ,, \ \ --,, 0
t �t1 I 5 If z, ,
p
i
-, I
, , r -
,i
1i \ C M >U \i
a
( t�: 1: ; 1 `tc \\ R fit` 0
i
i i'.‘ a� l \ nl ,ti,j ) 1 � ! I -<
? , Jfl tt, ■ l I 4. s',^. I
1 �l
O is '
il '1' / \
" 1
�. _._ �3c�Ls
__...
1 2tl. (ill r9t.
Ayq
UYi(, CJYC� , y d /\!
i;, i . h.. , , t.i 1 v t hat I r.i .- survey was 'prepared by or under m' d i r� < t =;upr,ry i s i r,i�
i , ,,ria,r tlu ,,,,e,..,---: i f , Ir' Sta
And ! i.at n ,lulu I,i • rr, rr1 Pr ofrs inual Land Surveyor
t Li lir,nr•s'.?t ., . . Patel January 00"),'i. ._-i R
ij
a-6 . C
1/12/2004
• Variance Request by Mikhail Epshteyn, the owner of Lot 2,Block 6, Westwood Subdivision, Elk
River, MN
Requesting variance for the north side yard setback to be reduced to10 feet from non-
existing road formerly known as Lake Street and 35 feet from Lake Orono inlet channel on
the north side of Lot 2,Block 6 Westwood subdivision,Elk River,MN for the purpose of
construction of a single-family two story residential house.
The following are the reasons for this variance:
1. The literal enforcement of the zoning regulations from which the variance is requested
will constitute extreme and unnecessary hardship upon the owner. The width of this lot is
75 feet.By applying 10 feet setback from the south side and 30 feet setback from non
existing road on the north side and 50 feet from the Lake channel on the north side would
only leave 34-35 feet to build a house which is not possible. The variance would allow
for 54 feet to build a house. Otherwise no reasonable use can be made of this property
without the variance.
2. The variance requested arises from conditions unique to this property.When the land was
divided in 1953 there was a 40 feet road known as Lake Street planned between Block 6
and Block 4. Since that time there was a narrow channel formed in place of the road
which connects rain water collecting pipe outlet with Lake Orono.Therefore, the road
can not and does not exist anymore. Applying side road setback of 30 feet is not
reasonable in this case since the road does not exist.Applying 50 feet lake setback from
the narrow channel is not reasonable because it is not the main body of water of Lake
Orono. Both of these circumstances occurred after the land was divided and now create
practical difficulty as well as unnecessary hardship for the land owner to use this
residential city lot for construction without variance.
3. The literal application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the owner's
family from the rights enjoyed by other properties in this neighborhood.The variance
similar to the one requested was granted to the next door neighbor to the north of Lake
Street on Lot 8,Block 4 for his house. His house is in the same proximity to the Lake
Street and Lake Inlet as the variance requested in this document. Without this variance
the owner of the land would not be able to build a house and the land would continue to
be vacant.
4. These special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the owner's own
actions,but the result of the topographical changes made to the geographical area
surrounding the owner's property.
5. The variance requested will not adversely affect the public health, safety, convenience,
and general welfare of the community. It will actually enhance the neighborhood.The
owner's land has"no dumping"signs on the property,yet some irresponsible individuals
dump their yard waste on the owner's land because they think"no house=no
ownership". The variance would allow for the house to be built on the property.
Furthermore, this variance would not oppose in any way the general spirit and intent of
zoning regulations.
The owner sincerely hopes that this variance can be granted as it is the minimum variance
required to make the reasonable use of this land.
City of ...
Elk.
River
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner
FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Assistant X-):1—
DATE: February 19, 2004
SUBJECT: Lot 2, Block 6, Westwood Subdivision
The above property is proposing to encroach on a shoreland setback from Lake Orono. Since
the area is manmade, I do not see an issue with granting this variance. The property to the
north was granted a similar variance, so it would only be fair to grant this variance.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you.
•
•