5.3 PCSR 01-30-1995 ity of „�
�lk
River MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GARY SCHMITZ, PLANNING ASST.
DATE: JANUARY 24, 1995
SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST BY PAUL
LEFEBVRE, PUBLIC HEARING,
CASE NO. V 94-18
REQUEST
Paul LeFebvre is requesting a 356 square foot variance to exceed the
maximum size of accessory structure area.
LOCATION
19922 Ulysses Street; Lot 1, Block 2, Knollwood West 2nd Addition.
ZONING/LAND USE
Rla (Single Family Residential) / LR (Low Density Residential).
ATTACHMENTS
Location map, zoning map, site plan, floor plan, letter from the applicant.
BACKGROUND
Paul LeFebvre is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum area of
allowed accessory structures. Mr. LeFebvre's parcel is in the Rla zoning
district which allows 2,000 square feet of attached and detached accessory
structure area. The subject property is approximately 1 acre in size.
ANALYSIS
Mr. LeFebvre currently has an attached 24 foot by 24 foot (576 sq. ft.) 2-car
garage and a 26 foot by 30 foot (780 sq. ft.) detached garage. The request
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to Planning Commission Page 2
January 24, 1995
• involves adding a 20 ft. by 50 ft. (1,000 sq. ft.) addition to the existing
detached garage. The total accessory structure area, if the variance is
approved, would equal 2,356 square feet, or 356 square feet greater than the
ordinance allows. The applicant has constructed the existing detached
garage with masonite siding and the addition is proposed to be a continuation
of that standard. The reason the applicant wants to construct a 20 ft. by 50
ft. addition to the detached garage is to protect his motor home from the
outside elements. Please refer to the attached memo from the applicant
outlining his reasons for wanting the addition. In the letter, the applicant
maintains that his property would look better aesthetically if the motorhome
was kept inside rather than outside along the existing detached garage. Staff
and the applicant have discussed other options rather than a variance such
as reducing the size and configuration of the building. However, these
options were not acceptable to the applicant because the reduction in the size
of the building would no longer allow the applicant to use the building for its
intended use, which is to store his motor home.
VARIANCE
Staff refers the Planning Commission to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk
River Code of Ordinances for the five standards to consider when reviewing a
• variance request. Although staff does see the merits of storing equipment
inside, it is difficult to apply the variance parameters to fit Mr. LeFebvre's
request. There are no special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar
to this subject site which are not characteristic to other properties in the
same zoning district. Other property owners in the Ma zoning district are
subject to the same size restrictions as the applicant. Staff could find no
factors which make this request unique from any other similar request.
Approving this variance may lead to a precedent being set for similar
requests in the future. If the Commission feels this a valid request, it may be
more appropriate to amend the ordinance to increase the area allowed for
accessory structure space, rather than approve a variance. The following
paragraphs will highlight this very issue.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE
The City of Elk River amended the accessory structure ordinance in March
1994, due to the high number of requests exceeding the city standards. Prior
to the ordinance amendment, anyone wishing to exceed the city's maximum
accessory structure standard went through a conditional use permit. The
City lacked any solid guidelines for controlling the size of accessory
structures and each request was approved on its own merits. In an effort to
• reduce the number of conditional use permits reviewed by staff and the City
Council, staff proposed an ordinance amendment increasing the area
standards for accessory structures and requiring a variance, to exceed the
pc:v94-18
Memo to Planning Commission Page 3
January 24, 1995
0 maximum standard. Variances are subject to the 5 standards outlined above.
The new accessory structure ordinance, which allows 2,000 square feet for
accessory structure space in the Rla zoning district and 3,000 square feet in
the Al zoning district has worked well for the majority of the residents
building accessory buildings. The City only received one request in addition
to this proposal to exceed the maximum size.
Since the new ordinance was implemented, the City has, however, received
complaints from some property owners that the City is allowing too many
and too large of accessory buildings in the Rla zoning district and it is
starting to distract from the residential quality of the neighborhoods. The
City has also received the opposite complaint, stating that the City is too
restrictive and that more accessory structure area should be allowed to
enable equipment and other miscellaneous items to be stored indoors rather
than outside, which can become an eyesore. Each complaint is valid. The
City has also received more concerns relating to businesses starting in
accessory structures. It is difficult for staff to regulate small businesses which
seem to spring up over night in some of the larger accessory buildings. It is
also difficult to prove in certain cases that a part-time business such as an
auto body shop exists in an accessory building without a great deal of staff
time proving the matter. All in all, however, it does appear that the current
• ordinance works well for the majority of the property owners. It is important
to note that virtually any reasonable standard for accessory structure area
will be challenged from time to time through a variance request. Staff feels it
is important to develop a reasonable standard and not deviate from that
standard unless valid findings exist.
RECOMMENDATION
Although staff sympathizes with Mr. LeFebvre's request to store his motor
home indoors, it is staffs opinion that this particular request does not meet
the five conditions for granting a variance and therefore, recommends denial
of the variance to exceed the maximum size of accessory structure area based
on the following findings:
1. Literal application of the provisions of this ordinance will not
deprive the petitioner of substantial property rights, as he is
still allowed to build 2,000 sq. ft. of accessory building area.
2. Other property owners in this area are also subject to the same
requirements for accessory structures, therefore, the situation is
not unique to Mr. LeFebvre's property. There are no special
conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the land or
0 structure causing the need for a variance.
pc:v94-18
Memo to Planning Commission Page 4
January 24, 1995
• 3. The 2,000 sq. ft. accessory structure area standard was
developed for the Rla zoning district where the minimum lot
size is 2-1/2 acres. Mr. LeFebvre's parcel is a nonconforming lot
in that it only has one acre, yet he is still allowed to build to the
same standard as the larger lots in that district.
•
•
pc:v94-18
A.
• 6
.All 1
I0 �a.// LOCATION c 1
}
•
— !! Z.
/ Y • r
iota°.4'6.4,1 .co 111411 iit „,,..,
,:.
/Ili'
hi'
ar 1111111
. silli
111110 :
, i III , ibMvimilltaillil t *::.;
vir.
L._
hi D
re
Q
w----4--1)1. ; . 711116w ii1,64-.,
(..\fi, '
11
ri
--_,;7 411I (C��.'�jn `�1 ■ •■ moo.
- fw'' ,r MmaCr
HWY 10&52 ��__y , 141114ib -gime
_I '��i ` J
JIIII - OM I” C ''
ii
„lin„.
SHERBUR `4. f ,e
\ ..
num term VRIGHT__.....__________ -- ' 4 z�z
C� O O
U U
a
Z
..
City of
re
�� _ R River t,„.
,yLa z
10
LOCATION MAP -, ti
0 R � �
CASE: V 94-18
r-„,„
4j-
•
•
1--_
4
�R-c> r1
•
. .
- -4;
•
LI 1
•
t-1 1
12.-4.11" ov11') orz..
p
December 21,1994
1111
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, Mn. 55330
RE: Variance application.
To Whom it may concern,
The reason for the application is for an addition to an existing garage to house my motorhome.
By leaving the motorhome sit outside it is subject to the outside elements such as sun (year
around) and winter elements. I have over $65,000 invested in this unit and I don't care to have it
depreciate in value because of the weather. At this time it needs to be winterized so nothing
freezes while it sits outside. By putting it into a garage I won't have to winterize and I also will
gain more use from it, if I choose to travel during the winter months. The property owner just two
lots south of my property has a pole barn which is a lot larger than I am proposing.
This variance will not be injurious to or affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the
city or the neighborhood. On the contrary a nice building to house everything in, is safer and more
appealing to the neighborhood.
•
Res ectfully yours,
/
Paul L. LeFebvre
•