5.4 PCSR 05-23-1995 \4, *
ITEM 5.4.
ity of MEMORANDUM
Elk •
River TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Gary Schmitz, Planning &ctAl
Assistant
DATE: May 23, 1995
SUBJECT: Variance Request by Paula Dargis/
Public Hearing Case No. V 95-3
Request
Paula Dargis is requesting a 22 ft. variance to the 50 ft. shoreland setback
requirement for Lake Orono.
Location
• 1946 Main Street NW, Elk River. Lot 5 & 6, Block 2, Orono Addition.
Zoning/Land Use
R1C (Single Family Residential) /MR (Medium Density Residential)
Attachments
• Location map
• Zoning map
• Site plan
• Letter from applicant.
Background
Paula and Ron Dargis are proposing to add a family room, and replace and
extend their existing deck in order to take better advantage of the lake view.
The applicants home is located on a small point on Lake Orono. Their
existing deck is located 28 ft. from the ordinary high water mark of Lake
Orono. The proposed addition would also be located 28 ft. from the ordinary
high water mark of Lake Orono. The City of Elk River's shoreland ordinance
• classifies Lake Orono as a general development lake which requires a 50 ft.
setback from the ordinary high water mark. The existing home was built in
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
• the early 1970's. The applicant is proposing to add an 18' x 16' family room
and a 16' x 16' L-shaped deck which wraps around a portion of the north and
east side of the home.
The applicant's lot is a long, narrow, 66 ft. wide parcel. Due to the way the
home was constructed, and the narrowness of the lot, the applicant has very
few options for placing the addition where it will not need a variance. Note
the attached site plan which shows how the home is located on the parcel.
DNR Review
The application was sent to Dan Lais, DNR Area Hydrologist, for review.
Due to the fact that the home is already at variance to the shoreline
lakeshore setback, and that the structure will be located no closer than the
existing structure, the DNR did not have a problem with this request. The
DNR did suggest that an option could be considered to reduce the size of the
proposed deck in order to eliminate any potential visual impacts of the
surrounding neighbors.
Variance Requirements
• Staff refers the Planning Commission to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk
River code of ordinance, for the five standards to consider when reviewing a
variance. Staff also refers the Planning Commission to the applicants letter
addressing the five standards. Staff feels that there are adequate findings to
grant the variance from the ordinary high water mark:
• The lot is limited to the placement of an addition, due to the narrowness
of the parcel. The garage is located on the front of the home and due to
the required side yard setbacks, there is no area to place an addition on
either side yard without a variance. Therefore, the most logical location
for the addition is the north side of the home, near the lake.
• The applicants' home was constructed before the current shoreland rules
were in place, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to modify the
home in any way without the need for a variance.
• It should also be stressed that although the proposed deck is considerably
larger, it is not encroaching any closer on the setback than the existing
deck.
• There are also several homes located along Main Street which are set
IDback a similar distance, or closer to the ordinary high water mark, than
v95-3/planning/pc
• the applicants' existing home; therefore, this request would not be out of
character for the neighborhood.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the 22 ft. variance request by Paula and Ron
Dargis based on the following findings:
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause unnecessary
hardship by not allowing the applicant to construct a deck or family
room addition in a reasonable location on the parcel.
2. The variance is not a consequence of the petitioners' action but due to
the construction of the home prior to the shoreland ordinance.
3. Granting the variance will not be injurious or adversely affect the
health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Elk River or
the neighborhood where the property is located, as other homes in the
area are set back a similar distance from the lake.
4. The coverage ratio of the home on the parcel is approximately 10%.
• Therefore, the addition would not exceed the maximum 25% coverage
ratio and would give a clear indication that a hoouse of this size is
excessive for the parcel.
•
v95-3/planning/pc
,r
— 14P0
• r .,.
,.� 1
I'
0
rc.
3
1 ELwc 4 c 4
w ,
_ r,
..
. ;..
._
c,. _
a,
......
nuilid . `u
O
Mkugt)
ipti
CO•LO
X320 -Ed
r
14(
�
It
hi ,,
_ 2 a
1 Ar lit L.. ._
W
• __ ,..•..
1111101101 . ��� y
r: . 'ig Ziti.T6 V i
S ii bilipi-J..- /fes �■mac�I, ;� mill`..-- 'i.dam
am lit
ellHWY 10&52 � ),���� ���`�g■■
/ems I!' '�'•�
•Am • I _g= L 3
„, •
Ail
'
,,
, .
NirmaNii141
4
�i . ` r
marc(mn VRIGHT �A�..,..,.
. ,
7 7
��\ o 0
U U
ra.
W r
JJ( LOCATION
city of
W
, ,
, , 1vcr W ❑
LI
LOCATION MAP . � ,
• ,
CASE: V 95-3 ,\
r-
9 '
91
34` Ion •
_
(rIVXC". St, as, Lii (*)
•.RC:l. r a le. °Vol 71'
Jo' I
4) \u-
4 6 - - - - - DJ-<-11`t- a I-6"
1 II V
1 7 ' II "
0612,,k__ 7:6
. ,
14 ", / i • •
I
ii. - -
1
1
rt
, N ,
, , ,
p.„. , ,
. . _ _.__,_... .
s
Vim., . , co ,
t. _,..
- . _.
clr,
lati
1/44
,I , f
\)....... _ 1 ,�
•
• �,�. `C
-4
rr 1 ;.
. .. . ,!,1•t.-t:,,is*: —
,J ,c.>i
•
\ (-)N
\ e
• \ . ,
0 ' / ,-,
ZN
•
s
• APPLICATION FOR LAKE SHORE
SET BACK VARIANCE
To Whom it may concern, April 22 , 1995
Our home at 1946 Main St . , Elk River on Lake Orono was not
originally designed so that full advantage of the lake view could
be utilized. For that reason we are applying for a lake shore set
back variance. We are proposing to add a family room, replace and
extend our existing deck and utilize our existing inside space to
create a larger and more workable kitchen .
The existing structure was most likely built before the set
back ordinances were in place. The additions and extensions that
we are proposing would not put any new structure any closer to the
lake than the existing is at this time.
Our home is situated in a long time established area. Many of
the neighboring structures are closer to the lake than what we are
proposing. For that reason we feel that our proposal would not
deviate form the normal for the area.
We are applying for this variance at this time because our
• home is in need of new siding, windows , roof and landscaping. The
cost of the maintenance needed and the proposed addition would be
greatly effected if not done at the same time.
We appreciate your consideration of our situation .
Sincerely,
- _
•
PEI
0
0