5.1 PCSR 10-25-1994 ,/ AK. ITEM NO. 5.1.
(
ity of �
lkv MEMORANDUM
Ri • er TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TROY LANGER, PLANNING INTERN 1,7
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1994
SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST BY HARLEY A.
MAROHN, PUBLIC HEARING, CASE
NO. V 94-12
REQUEST
The applicant has submitted an application for a thirty-two (32) foot variance
from the fifty (50) foot shoreland setback requirements.
LOCATION
1731 Fifth Street, Elk River, MN
• ZONING / LAND USE
Rlc (Single-Family Residential) /MR (Medium Residential)
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map, Zoning Map, Site Map, Letter From Mr. Marohn
INTRODUCTION
Because Lake Orono is designated as a General Development Lake, all
structures in sewered districts must meet a fifty (50) foot shoreland setback
requirement. The proposed garage is within the setback area and requires a
variance from the shoreland setback requirements. Mr. Marohn is proposing
to construct the garage eighteen (18) feet from the ordinary high water
(O.H.W.) mark, which requires a thirty-two (32) foot variance.
Mr. Marohn is proposing to construct a twenty-six (26) foot by thirty (30) foot
(780 square feet)(two stall) garage. Currently, there is not a garage or
accessory structure located on the lot. According to City Code requirements,
property in a R-lc zoning district would be allowed up to one-thousand two-
hundred (1,200) square feet of accessory and garage structures. City Code
P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
Planning Commission, Harley A. Marohn Page 2
October 25, 1994
•
also requires that all new housing construction include a minimum of one ten
(10) foot wide single-stall garage.
Access to Mr. Marohn's property, which is a municipal sewered parcel located
along Lake Orono, is via a private road. Fifth Street ends as a public street
before Mr. Marohn's property and the remaining portion of the street is an
easement for a private road.
Located on the lot are numerous trees that would be considered significant
and Mr. Marohn desires to keep as many of the trees as possible during the
construction of the garage. Staff would also encourage preserving the
existing trees during the construction of the garage.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (D.N.R.) has been contacted
in regard to this matter and has verbally commented approval of the
variance, but recommended to minimize the impact along the shoreline. The
D.N.R. is recommending that the structure be located at least twenty-five
(25) feet from the O.H.W. mark.
VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS
• According to City Code, in order for a variance to be granted, five (5) items
must be found:
1) That the literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue
(unnecessary, unavoidable, extreme) hardship.
2) The hardship caused by special conditions and circumstances
which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which
are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or
structures in the same district.
3) 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 wherein the property is situated and will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
marohn.troy
Planning Commission, Harley A. Marohn Page 3
October 25, 1994
•
APPLICANT'S REASON'S FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Mr. Marohn explains that because of the shape of the lot that a garage can
not be built without being in the shoreland setback area. He also mentions
that the construction of a garage would improve the site rather than detract
property values. He mentions that he would be able to store items inside of
the garage rather than store them outside. One item that Mr. Marohn did
not mention in the letter, but discussed in conversation was that there are
numerous trees located on the lot and he would like to save as many trees as
possible with the construction of the garage.
ANALYSIS
In review of a variance request, all of the above mentioned points are
analyzed before making a recommendation. In order to construct the garage
in the proposed location the applicant must receive approval of a variance. If
the applicant does not receive approval of the variance request, they may
either move the garage in a location that better minimizes the setback or not
construct the garage.
• The first point addresses whether literal enforcement of the code creates an
undue hardship on the property. Because there is no location on the parcel
that a garage could be constructed without a variance, staff agrees that the
literal enforcement would not allow the construction of a garage.
The second point addresses whether the hardship is caused by special
conditions that are unique to the land. Mr. Marohn argues that because of
the unique shape of the lot, there is not a buildable location for a garage on
the lot. Staff would agree with Mr. Marohn's argument.
The third point addresses whether literal application of the ordinance would
deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. Mr. Marohn argues that
there are other lots in the immediate location with garage stalls. Staff would
agree that without a variance Mr. Marohn would be the only property owner
in the immediate area without a garage stall.
The fourth point addresses whether the special circumstances are not a
consequence of the applicants actions. Mr. Marohn argues that because of
the standards set by the City of Elk River and the shape of the lot, it becomes
difficult to locate a garage on the property. Staff would agree that with the
• current setback requirements and the shape of the lot it is very difficult to
locate a garage on the lot.
marohn.troy
Planning Commission, Harley A. Marohn Page 4
October 25, 1994
•
The last point addresses whether or not the variance will affect the health,
safety, or welfare of the residents of the City. Mr. Marohn argues that the
garage will not affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. Staff
would agree that the garage will not affect the health, safety, or welfare of
the residents, but would still like to minimize the effects as much as possible.
Whenever a variance is requested, consideration must be given to whether or
not precedence will be set by the actions taken. If a variance is granted from
the City Code requirements, will this set precedence for future applicants? In
relation to this particular request, findings can be substantiated that
precedence will not be set by allowing the variance request.
Staff is in favor of allowing the variance for the construction of a garage, but
there are two items that staff addressed. The first item is the size of the
garage. Is the applicant proposing to construct a garage that may be too
large for the site and could a smaller garage be constructed without a
variance. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed garage is not an unusual
size for the lot. There is not a location on the lot where a garage could be
constructed that would meet setback requirements and if the garage size just
• meet the minimum standards it may become unusable and not serve a
purpose for the property owner.
The second point addresses whether or not there might be a location for the
proposed garage that may not impede upon the setback area as much. Staff
is of the opinion that if the garage were moved to the east approximately
eight (8) to ten (10) feet, it will better minimize the setback and may not
require the movement or loss of significant trees. Staff has discussed this
with Mr. Marohn and he has confirmed that it may be possible to relocate the
proposed garage. The movement of the garage, which the D.N.R.
recommended, would still require a variance from the setback requirements,
but it would minimize the the effects along the shoreland. Staff would not be
in favor of approving a thirty (32) foot variance request for the garage.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to approve a twenty-five (25) foot variance
request from the shoreland setback requirements to construct a
twenty (26) foot by thirty (30) foot garage based on the following
findings:
•
marohn.troy
Planning Commission, Harley A. Marohn Page 5
October 25, 1994
•
FINDINGS:
1) LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE CREATES AN
UNDUE HARSHIP ON THE PROPERTY OWNER BY
PREVENTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE.
2) THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THE UNIQUE SHAPE
OF THE LOT.
3) LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD
DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER THE ABILITY TO
CONSTRUCT A GARAGE. OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS
IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA ENJOY SIMILAR ABILITY
TO OWN A GARAGE.
4) THE APPLICANT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE LOT.
5) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE WOULD NOT
• AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THE
RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER.
•
marohn.troy
MI — 3111pg 16. - - -— . -.--^
• II Dr. ,
-- 1.
or . T--
N
Co Rh 0.
X33 /
FLvv..
a
7j. h
) .
- imal .
l
i y . ('O L
iii
UPI 0
�R° 1
Jt
wit •
LOCATIONeiti, ;
607111 I agliF N
ccii II - ii . --mitli-1-410ccW
.Aswi % - al lc
2
GI
' . — -. ,,, .-.-------1:i.---"4114
91PAW4 ‘, "MU
44 4 b ,ter-, .`R ‘,.... 4'' ( .
HWY 10&52 7 v, i� �4 /•.miji II
" lierruiligill - L 1)
5
5
411:C
U U
51
„....
f
i
city of
W
i, _ k River ).-
W Z
\y
N ¢
r2r.
LOCATION MAP tt
QaO. r_9
44 1
• , , ' it
R�Ye
--
CASE: V 94-12
r-,,,,
_ rl 0130'
• 1- LJ
w0 n
w
CC
0
V
M 2 24' 0
H
w
2 0' w < 15' >
W `)
0
0
5,_
w
> A
Eol
7' 0
o
z O
z
00 O
T
H W
• Z _ Y
W o Q
2 0111 0 LO J
W0CO
C 0
Q
w
0
0 ° 0 V N
Z < }'' 30' < > w
0 12 27' oiC
H H
Q (
0 LL
N 0
0
J Z
o ° .< 23' 7 O
u17-
0
0 •0 ct
Q. O
0
0 w J
IX N W
a W
Vo Q =
42 N0
U �� cc
_ x 0
•
SITE MAP' z
=
z a
— a
CASE: V 94-12 r Q
0
ZONING MAP
CAsc V 94.4
1Ver P.O. Box 490.13063 Orono Parkway • Elk Rive:, MN 55330 . (612)=1-7420