7.5. SR 06-17-2019Request for Action
To
Item Number
City Council
7.5
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Public Hearings
June 17, 2019
Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner
Item Description
Reviewed by
Variance: Side Yard Setback, Scott Lillestrand,
Zack Carlton, Planning Manager
12426193 d Lane
Reviewed by
Cal Portner, City Administrator
Action Requested
Direct staff, by motion, to prepare a resolution making finding of fact denying the side yard setback
variance based on the following findings:
1. The variance is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
2. The plight of the petitioner is not due to circumstances unique to the property, and is a consequence
of the petitioners own action or inaction.
The finding of fact will be brought forward at the July 1, 2019, City Council meeting.
Background/Discussion
Case No. V 19-02
The property is located at 12426 193rd Lane and is zoned Ric with setback as follows:
Front: 30 feet
Side: 10 feet
Garage: 5 feet
Rear: 20 feet
The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a deck 2 '/z feet within the 10 foot side yard setback.
Applicable Regulation
(The applicant's responses are italicised with staff's notes after.)
Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that the variance satisfies all five of the criteria
described below. The variance is:
1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and
The general purpose and intent of side yard setbacks is to ke p structures reasonably separated for safety and aesthetic reasons.
The garage side setback requirement is 5 feet. Currently, the garage of my home is 5.5 feet from the side property line. The
proposed variance request would place the new deck construction 7.5 feet from the proper y line. That is 2 feet further away
from the propea y line than the existing garage. This new addition would not further encumber access to the sideyard as the
garage is already at a 2 foot shorter distance to the lot line than the proposed deck construction location. In theory, the garage
could be extended further into the back yard at 5 feet from the propea�v line without issue. A deck would be far less imposing
to the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and I would conclude that it would be safer as well. One could also
The Elk River Vision
A wehoMing community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional P,` 01 W E H E 8 6 T
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity INAWRE1
conjecture that a deck is also better than a garage aesthetically speaking. There are no utilities located in the area of the
proposed deck construction.
In addition to reasonably separating properties and uses for aesthetic and safety reasons, the principal
structure setbacks are in place to keep habitable spaces separated at least 20 feet (in this case) from one
another. While a garage/shed can be 5 -feet from a property line, the rationale is the space is not habitable.
The general purpose is not achieved.
2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan.
The proper y is guided for residential and decks are allowed in residential districts. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with
the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" is defined as:
3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance;
Under the current honing ordinance, I could extend andl or construct a garage 5 feet from the proper y line. I find it reasonable
to think that a deck in this same area to the lot line would not make any more negative impact to the spirit of the honing
ordinance than a garage. The garage is already encumbering an area 5.5 feet from the proper y line and the proposed deck
location would encumber less than the currentgarage by an additional 2 feet.
The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, as decks and garages are an allowed
use. The applicant believes if a garage can be up to 5 feet from a property line then a deck should also be
allowed.
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the
petition's own action or inaction; and
The layout of our home as built dictates that we can onjbuild a screened -in porch and deck combination in limited ways. lie
spent considerable time designing with trial and error to find the most efficient and best use of our current buildingl land. One
priority was to keep the view out the rearpicture widow of our home unobstructed. At the same time, making sure the addition
is structurally sound, functions with water drainage, and is a well --built addition. For a roof line that was nice to view and
functioned well for both build quality and water drainage, it was required that we line up the side wall of the screened -in porch
with the side wall of the house. It is from that location that we get to add measure to the side deck. The challenge pare found was
that the width of our city lot, as designed, is narrow. lie have an average to below average rambler by side and footprint in my
opinion and I believe our development was designed with narrow lots. Lot si-Ze being larger, this would not be an issue and one
that is out of our control.
No unique features appear to be on the parcel requiring a variance. The deck could be designed 2.5 feet
narrower and meet the required setbacks. While the desire of the applicant is not to block the view from a
window, the deck portion can be placed on the southwest side of the proposed porch in front of the
window.
5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The essential character of the locale will not be altered. I would reiterate that a garage could be built in this same area without
issue, but a deck is far more appealing to our community and neighbors and is equaljsafe all things considered.
N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\06-17-2019\Final\7.5 sr.docx
The character of the locality would not be altered. Some structures are allowed to be within 5 feet of the
property line.
Financial Impact
None
Board of Adjustments
The Board reviewed this request on May 28, 2019, and unanimously denied the request. A variance denied by
the Board is automatically appealed to the City Council.
The Board denied the variance based on the position that the following two, of the required five, criteria are
not met.
1. Is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
2. The plight of the petitioner is not due to circumstances unique to the property, and is a consequence
of the petitioners own action or inaction. The deck design and/or location can be changed to meet
the setback requirements
Public Hearing
The applicant discussed his desire not to block their patio window in order to continue to maintain the view
of the wildlife and wetland behind their property. He feels a deck is less of an encumbrance than a garage or
shed, which can be up to five feet from the property line. When asked why he cannot make the deck smaller,
he stated they drafted various designs but because of current rooflines and window placement, issues kept
arising. He also stated the placement of items such as a grill, table, and chairs would not be functionally
possible if the deck was made smaller.
Since the Board of Adjustment meeting, the neighbor directly to the east (the side the deck is proposed on)
has indicated they reviewed the plans and support the approval of the request.
Attachments
■ Location Map
■ Applicant's Narratives
■ Aerials
■ Deck Drawings
■ Letter of Support
■ Site Photos
N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\06-17-2019\Final\7.5 sr.docx
22 -60
75
75fi5Q-b23i
IR
75-650
T5-660 3LF4 75-650306 7516 AD
Il'. Ilii W
f
e
les,trand
Valiance
-
�, T4
_ 75-635215
75-t650-03 16
75" 06 122
4 _
i
75 ,08-0124
75 ZVO -0126
75 a4-031 '
3114
h
e y
Case . 19-02 Elver
Scott Lillestrand
12426193 rd Lane NW
Elk River, MN 55330
(763) 607-2475
slillestrand@Rmail.com
Variance Narrative
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 2019
I, Scott Lillestrand, the owner of 12426 193rd Lane NW Elk River, MN 55330 am requesting a variance
from 10 feet to 7.5 feet on the "Garage side" side -yard setback of the property line for the construction
of a deck. Thank you for your time and considering this request.
The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
The general purpose and intent of side yard setbacks is to keep structures reasonably separated
for safety and aesthetic reasons. The garage side setback requirement is 5 -feet. Currently, the
garage of my home is 5.5 -feet from the side property line. The proposed variance request would
place the new deck construction 7.5 feet from the property line. That is 2 -feet further away from
the property line than the existing garage. This new addition would not further encumber access
to the side yard as the garage is already ata 2 -foot shorter distance to the lot line than the
proposed deck construction location. In theory, the garage could be extended further into the
back yard at 5 -feet from the property line without issue. A deck would be far less imposing to
the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and I would conclude that it would be safer as
well. One could also conjecture that a deck is also better than a garage aesthetically speaking.
There are no utilities located in the area of the proposed deck construction.
The variance is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan.
The property is guided for residential and decks are allowed in residential districts. It is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
zoning ordinance;
Under the current zoning ordinance, I could extend and/or construct a garage 5 -feet from the
property line. I find it reasonable to think that a deck in this same area to the lot line would not
make any more negative impact to the spirit of the zoning ordinance than a garage. The garage
is already encumbering an area 5.5 -feet from the property line and the proposed deck location
would encumber less than the current garage by an additional 2 -feet.
The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a
consequence of the petition's own action or inaction; and
The layout of our home as built dictates that we can only build a screened -in porch and deck
combination in limited ways. We spent considerable time designing with trial and error to find
the most efficient and best use of our current building/land. One priority was to keep the view
out the rear picture widow of our home unobstructed. At the same time, making sure the
addition is structurally sound, functions with water drainage, and is a well-built addition. For a
roof line that was nice to view and functioned well for both build quality and water drainage, it
was required that we line up the side wall of the screened -in porch with the side wall of the
house. It is from that location that we get to add measure to the side deck. The challenge we
found was that the width of our city lot, as designed, is narrow. We have an average to below
average rambler by size and footprint in my opinion and I believe our development was designed
with narrow lots. Lot size being larger, this would not be an issue and one that is out of our
control.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The essential character of the locale will not be altered. I would reiterate that a garage could be
built in this same area without issue, but a deck is far more appealing to our community and
neighbors and is equally safe all things considered.
V
f �
air -A jr
AO orJ
r
w r
•s
r
f
a_
a
0
0
C�:�czLL
12
2
0
�8
8�
2
EXISTING
oN
8 �
HOUSE
EX15TING
6
HLfi
OUSE
i
i�
_6..
EXISTING
HOUSE
EXISTINGHOU5E
R
PzF
u
u
uu u
LEFT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
a_
z
o
w
o
U1 J
p J
EXISTING 12
nousE
DISCLAIMER
Ex15rING
GARAGE
IN PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN EVERY
0
ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO AVOID
W
M15TAKE5. DESIGNER CANNOT GUARANTEE
N;
AGAINST HUMAN ERROR. CONTRACTOR TO
Z
_
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS
Z So H
I -G"
- I -G'
AND BE RESPONSIBLE POR THE SAME.
W �n
THESE DESIGNS, CONCEPTS AND
? n
EXISTING
SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS Of
( l W n m 0
m
GARAGE
SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAIN THE
vv N ^
n
_
EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF COUNTRY LUMBER
Q m
AND ARE NOT TO BE COPIED WITHOUT THE
3W
�.:
WRITTEN CONSENT Of COUNTRY LUMBER.
W ¢ k
0>_16
m
s
EX15TING
HOUSE
_
Q
^
N
W H
Q
V
m
V
I I I I
-
Na
I I I I I I
�... �
I
L I
REAR ELEVATION
OF 4
N
3-2x 10
EX15TING GxG WOOD P05T ON I
hOU5E 12" 0 x 48" DEEP
CONC. PIER PTG.
U
x� -
REPLACE EX15T.
PATIO DR. �
APPLY SCREEN
UNDER DECKING II
I II 3-2x 12 PL.
" nz it J
GxG WOOD P05T ON
20" 0 x 48" DEEP 5-6" G'
CONC. PIER FfG. _
1
4=2.1 0 2--2z 0 _
2-7x f o
__ __ I-
oNo
I� -2x1 0
7-0" 7-0i'
14'-0" 6-0" 4'-0-
24'-C"
BASEMENT PLAN
2
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SRT. (HOUSE) SFT. (GARAGE)
14'_0"
101_01,
6..
12
8
� 12 116 WOOD CLG.
4
2-I 17/8" MLti
6x6 WOOD
POSTS
m
2x 10 fl -R. JSTS. SUB FLOOR @
FLR. JSTS.
6x6 WOOD POST ON
@ 16" O.C. EXISTING I10USE
"O.C.
L5/4"
5/4" DECKING
ECKING 4SCREWEDWED
v
APPLY SCREEN
UNDER DECKING
L�
L� LJ
4
BUILDING SECTION
SEE BUILDERS SPECIFICATION FOR WILDING MATERIALS
3/8"= P-0"
OF 4
TRTD. GLU-LAM
6x6 WOOD POST ON
m
20" 8 x 48" DEEP
CONC. PIER FTG.
Meeting Notes — Case V 19-02 Variance
Scott & Melissa Lillestrand
12426193 rd Lane NW
Elk River, MN 55330
1) Homeowner — Time and cost to get to this stage in the process is not insignificant.
2) 10 ft. Side Set -Back — 20 ft. between homes. Submitted diagram — adjacent homes fully
constructed and have almost twice that at 38 ft. Note: Trees along lot line.
3) Current Platted Developments with 5 ft. house side yard set -back. Minimum 20 ft. between
houses. Shorter side yard set -back design is being done elsewhere to mitigate issues with
narrow lots like mine.
a. Kliever 4th
b. Tall Pines
c. West Oaks
d. Miske 2nd on Edison
4) Being in harmony of the general ordinance purpose and intent is a challenge for the following
reasons:
a. Narrow lot is indeed a hardship out of our control. Only 60 feet width for home
footprint creates significant considerations/constraints for proposed deck when you
factor in the following issues that need to be addressed for a proper build of a rambler
styled home:
i. Water drainage/roof lines are a significant consideration.
ii. Rambler one level living and flow of traffic with current design and large family.
Size & scale so it will be visually pleasing, and safe for all who use it.
1. Size is a factor for safety: Egress for movement around tables/chairs for
large family with elderly members.
2. Grill placement with considerations for both heat and open Flame.
b. Garage is currently at 5.5 feet to lot line. Visually, the proposed construction is hidden
behind the garage. Garage is already encumbering the space in the easement and the
deck does not further encumber the side yard set -back. As well, I would note that my
garage is more of a living space than the house as I seam to spend far more time in it
than probably any other place in my home. I could pull a permit and extend my garage
into this area without issue, and one would have to certainly agree that it would have a
far bigger impact to the harmony of the general ordinance than my current proposal.
5) Neighbors have signed and submitted letter supporting the council to approve our request. The
actual distance between living spaces is 38 ft. If the spirit of the ordinance is a minimum of 20
feet between living spaces, we are almost double this number at 38 feet.
6) Value of our home is maximized with proposed design — positive impact on tax base value.
7) The variance application is available to citizens to be used with cost. It is a case by case process
that gets reviewed and decided through our civic process. Every case should have the possibility
of being approved given a reasonable set of facts.
To
City of Elk River Council Members
From:
Randy & Becky Vevle
12418193 rd Lane NW
Elk River, MN 55330
We have been notified by our immediate neighbors, Scott and Melissa Lillestrand 12426 193rd Lane NW,
of their request for a variance to construct a new addition to their home. We have reviewed the plans
and documents for this planned construction. We support the approval of their request for a 2.5 foot
side yard set -back variance for the outlined construction.
yp� I
� � spa I ask
I
Soo
I
�' i e• > � IFPS' � r C ?
�r'� rye, �f �a � : `^' ''" 1�r�� , \ : iy a t e., • . ie•` '1 r f ,•��,��
i• i{I�., � 71 '! ��,d[ v, r �' a �a>
w...i
, i �•� v v. ` .. r L, r•,
AL
' - o
. k -'t - a �a�.s•-. - � '� �i y � � �� J. - -.'—"''^+alp-. ..,_ - 1
a �` ✓ a t
r a
5
+ �Mt
•w _
1ji
J I
l.
�. ,- ,: �`x. !!!�'' _ .. •.<. -, .rte <�
,,.i ° •�,���?�;J` Kiri .; �Kl!-.'l"' `. . �; � .
7N.
!Fmo - - 11
AJ'
y , F ,�f�,,: ,.- . :,� f i�j� . sem•,
FO? .K
' � •�` \ICK `r�r��*`
i
K
1�
• ^�� - -
�� PIP,log
`.
r
a�