6.1. SR 10-15-2007REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Ci 'Council 6.1.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Communi Develo ment October 15, 2007 Sheila Caxtne', Senior Planner
Item Description Reviewed by
Appeal Board of Adjustments Decision for Denial of Request exem Barnhart, Plannin Mana ex
by Ross Hjexmstad fox Setback Variance for an Accessory Reviewed by
Structure, Case No. V 07-08
Action Requested
The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a 330 square foot addition to the existing garage
with a front setback of 20 feet rather than the 35 feet that is required. Staff xecotrunends denial of the
request and the Board of Adjustments denied the request due to criteria #1 not being met. If the Council
approves the request the following conditions should apply:
1. The development shall meet all applicable fire codes.
2. The addition is required to meet all applicable building codes and apply for
appropriate permits.
3. The addition shall be located as shown on the plans dated received September 18,
2007.
Summary
The applicant is requesting a variance to the front setback to allow an addition to the third stall garage.
The addition would encroach 15 feet into the setback leaving a 20 foot setback from the property line.
The subject site is a corner lot and has two fronts. According to the applicant, an alternative location is
not available on the lot due to the layout of the house and the slopes; there is also a pool and a deck in
the backyard.
Board of Adjustments Discussion
There was no public comment. The Board discussed the criteria and recommended denial based on the
assumption criteria #1 was not met.
Attachments
• Staff Report to Planning Commission dated October 9, 2007.
Motion by Second by _ Vote
Follow Up
S:AYLANNINGVCase FilesVVarianceVV 07-OS HjermsradVAction Requested -Post Planning Comm.doc
Cty of
Elk -.~ REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
To Item Number
Board of Adjustments ~{
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Planning Items October 9, 2007 Sheila Caxtney, Senior Planner
Item Description Reviewed by
Requesting approval of a Variance to allow an addition to the exem Barnhart, P Mara er
existing 3-stall garage to encroach in the front setback 15 feet Reviewed by
Case # V07-08
Action Requested
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the request for the variance based on not all
variance criteria is met. Not approving the variance most likely will not cause undue hardship.
If the Board of Adjustments approves the request to allow the addition to the garage to encroach
into the required 35 feet setback by 15 feet; staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The development shall meet all applicable fire codes.
2. The addition is required to meet all applicable building codes and apply for
appropriate permits.
3. The addition shall be located as shown on the plans dated received September 18,
2007.
Background/Discussion
The property was developed in 2003 with a walkout single family, three car garage home. There are steep
slopes leading to the backyard and an in ground pool.
Attachments
Location Map
• Applicant's Narrative
• Site Plan(s)
• Architectural Drawing(s)
Case File: V07-OB
Page 2
General Information
Ross Hjemssrad
A licant Ross Hjermstad
60 Day Rule The application has been deemed complete as of September 18,
2007. The City must take action b November 18, 2007
Re nested Actlon Variance fox accessory structure
Location and Size 17,682 square feet lot at the comer of Denver Street and County
Road 30.
Location Existing Use Land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning
Sub'ect
J Single family Urban Residential R1b, single family
Property residential
North Single family Urban Residential Rlc, single family
residential
South Single family Urban Residential R1b, single family
residential
East Single family Urban Residential Rlb, single family
residential
West Single family Urban Residential R1b, single family
residential
Overview/Analysis
The applicant is requesting a variance to add an accessory building to the north side of the existing
garage. The accessory structure will be attached to the garage and will be accessed from inside the
garage and will have a service door, not a garage door. The property is on the comer of Denver
Street and County Road 30 (Mississippi Road); therefore, two front yard setbacks apply. The front
yard setback is 35 feet; the existing house and garage are currently at that setback.
The sear yard slopes to the back starting behind the garage and the house. According to the
applicant an alternative location is not available on the lot due to the layout of the house and the
slopes; there is also a pool and a deck in the backyard. If the subject site was not a corner lot a
variance would not be needed.
Applicable Regulations
Irariance Criteria
1. L.itera! enforcement oche ordinance wit! cause undue hardrhib.
5:\PLANNING\Case Files\Vaziance\V 07-08 Hjeimstad\Staff ceport.doc
Case File: V07-08
Page 3
Aws Hjeanstad
According the definition section of the City Code hardship is described as "the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by article VI, Division
13 of this chapter." The subject site currently has a three stall attached garage, City Code
requites two stalls per dwelling unit for single family use, the lot has already been put to
reasonable use by constructing the house and garage. Literal enforcement of the ordinance most
likely will not cause undue hardship.
2. The hardship is caused b~ecial conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the ~ro~Zerty and the
strucdure involved and which are not characterirtic of or a~dicable to other /andr or rtnrcture in the same area.
The subject site is a comer lot; comer lots have two front setbacks for the principal and
accessory buildings. The principal building is a walkout style house, the lot is sloped to the rear.
Due to the layout of the lot, the house and the side yard setback (front) there is not a location
fox the accessory structure without encroaching on one of the setbacks.
3. The .r~ecial conditions and circumstances are not a conreauence ofthe~etitioner'.r own action or inaction.
The subject site was graded as a walkout lot prior to the homeowners buying the lot and
building. The pool in the backyard uses a significant portion of the buildable land within the
setbacks.
4. The literal cr~litation of the~rovisions o~ this orzlinance would derive the petitioner of rights en~oyed by other
broberties in the same district under the terms of this ordinauce.
If a regular side setback applied to this location the accessory structure addition would not need
a variance. It is common for residential developments to have mare than one accessory structure
on site.
5. The variance wild not be iniuriaus to or adversely a~ect the health sa~ or we~are o~the yesidentr o the city or
the nez~barhood where the~erty is located and wield be in keebina with sbint and intent of'the otrlinance.
An addition to the existing garage should not adversely affect the health, safety ar welfare of
residents or the city ox the neighborhood. Based on the analysis above, the garage addition will
likely not detract from the chazacter of the neighborhood.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments deny the request. However, if the Board of
Adjustments approves the request staff suggests the conditions listed on page one of this report
apply.
Respectfully Submitted
Sheila Cartney
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\Variance\V 07-08 Hiermstad\Staff ieport.doc
Case File: V07-OS
Page 4
Senior Planner
Ross Hjexmstad
Action Motion by _ Second by Vote
Follow Up
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\Vadance\V 07-08 Hjeimstad\Staff ceport.doc
Location Man
c~c~ or P N
EI =~`~ Case Number: V 0-08 ROSS HJERMSTAD
River
Ross and Debra Hjermstad
18175 Denver St NW, Elk River
Application for Variance to Setback
September 19, 2007
1. That literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship.
We desire to build an accessory structure on tc the side of our garage which is essential far
the needs of our family. Due to the layout of our lot, the location along the side of the garage
is the only location suitable for this addition. Currently, a 35 ft. setback on our crorner lot
prohibits us from buildirig an accessory structure onto the side of our garage. Without a
variance to the setback we would not be able to build this accessory structure. The garage
side is near the setback and a variance would allow us to build the accessory structure
addition 15 ft. into the setback area, leaving 20 ft. open space between the addition and the
property line facing Mississippi St.
2. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land and
the structure involved and which are not charactedstics of or applicable to other lands or structures in the
same district.
• The walk-out layout of our lot causes a sever sloping to the backyard, which we have lessened
by installing concrete steps and athree-tiered 20 ft. boulder wall. The contractor has advised
us that it would be cost prohibitive to excavate and level off the backyard or other areas of the
side yard to build this addition outside of the setback area.
3. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the applicant's own action or
inaction.
• The sever sloping to the backyard is the natural lay of the land, slightly enhanced into awalk-
outdesign by the land developer prior to our purchase of the lot.
4. That the literal application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights
enjoyed by others properties in the same district under the terms of the Ordinance.
We are aware of many homeowners in the district who enjoy the beneft of an accessory
structure. Our wmer lot has two 35' setbacks which limits the options for placement of the
addition on our lot. Further, the sever sloping to the backyard prevents an addition in other
areas. By granting this variance to the setback, we will be able to build the accessory
structure necessary for cur family.
5. That 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.
We have had an opportunity to discuss our preliminary plans with our immediate neighhors
and have received only positive reactions, no negative comments at all. We intend to have the
surrounding side yard professionally landscaped for enhanced visual appeal facing Mississippi
St. The exterior of the addition will be designed with the same brickwork and window/door
design as the front of the home for continuity. We do not feel the addition will encroach upon
the safety of residents or commuters along Mississippi St.
C?~T'~'E~?~S~~V~~4i~`~C3
- ~ .., dn'... .
Certificate of survey for: h'ICKSHAM CONSTRUCTION ~~
sszs Denotes Eazsting Elevation HOUSE TYPE; FULL BASEMENT WALKOUT
9 1.5 Denotes Proposed Elevation pgOPOSED HOUSE ELEVATIONS:
"i peaotes Surlace Drainage OAppGE FLOOR ELEVATION 882.5
tip TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV.= 382.8
T1{ESEp~'NS 9US~G ~~ STpUCT10NE LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION = 874.5
AT ALLtIMEG R ~~~~f~ ~ ,
Sob # 8521-30-101 Hook/Page: 230 17
Scale; .1"=.30' Date; 03/17/03
O Denotes iron pipe set with a plastic
plug stamped RIS 21729.
e Denotes iron pipe Youad.
Drainage .and, Utility Easements are
shown thus: 1 i ,
Is~sl
o a
V 5U&IECTT6 FlEtO I ION AL ` ~ '~
~a ~°
„~~ ~g~ ~Slanga ® ~° ~
pateLG'r~ ~ ~ °~° ~ n n
GD ® i~~o , ~~~~ ~ ~
~ ~~/~.\ ~ 1 V5
RO- ~ Ega.2
~ ~ ~
\
x.\
ry u
ti\
\:
ex.
N %U - oav.a .. atl1.04 1 A
o /~ • ~ ~ \
~ \ ~ x3
~Lfl
Q~
\ eac.g
cs\ ax%
\
\
\~ \\
•~ ,
m ,~ ,
y~1 ~
'~'~`^^~ .In] Nlay Wi41Yi .1
e:' Cs properly Zinc. C;;~,
nz~f be set back 5 fezk fro!
property Gna.
~ \ t`
h\V ry
G m^°' \\
~\
9\
a
~~
~y$ dg'
r i+?~ ° ~
~~in ~ o° '~ O "o.
~ y ~
aeo, Pa yer' o Yho a mo =r
, y 9
~, gpo.a eon eao.o ~,,
ex ~'' M~,
1'~`~% ~S ~'cu,r.j~eWl ago
o. M ~ reavc , ~, -
~~ `48.6v 872.8
8975 x
'~ N B~s~ -X 8]BJ
a.s °~. an 56 ~6uE
o' o `
-1 -°s ado ~~
1 ~~e,~~~ egg`'
t ~ Maximum ddvewaY width 30 feet
~ the' PmPerty line. 9dveways
~ -~~. ~ muaP besa# back 5 feel' from an
ProPerlylbte: Y
t
L
15
l~ 1~
93 1
sersacxs
F~"'_
S /0
GS
L
Approved
Lot 1, Block 2, MISSISSIPPI OAKS 3RD ADDITION, Sherbtrr.~le County, Mn
I heresy certi4y ,that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or ender
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws oY the state of Minnesota.
JO
/~
f
~_
\ _~~
n ~,
11 i
~ t
HN OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, mrc. John Oliver & A t
~ ~.~,-,
By: Rick M. Hlom, Land Surveyor
Minnesota Registration No. 2'1729
Date: 03/20/03
ssocfa es, nc.
OHX{ BnpGv°rine, Land 5'urv~yirrp, Lama Plarmi°tq
6@0 Dodge Avenue
8Vt River, Minnesot¢
783-441-8072 (FAd')7g3-441-SBBS
OfJSoea in' 8[k River, DurnsvitCe
and Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
9"i
/I
~~
aF,
aa~~~,~~.~
ees,~
~:yy~
q~J .
3
,1
1
Y~
~mn
s-z a-,.
xw
i-,e • z-,c roro
c
mrz-z
°n
.c-.z
~~
~ - ~
---
q N ~~
y
~
~~
b n ~~ uyR
~
~~ ~~ ~
H
~g
~
~
r p U c
I
W ~~
I
~
~
K Z b°b
~~ q ~
I I
.
-----------~ I
I - r------------~
~~~~5
~ ~
~e
~ry
~~~
7p~. ~~ g a~
~ ~~ °~ ~~
~~~ ~~~ ~~
y~
8
~~
~~
olz m II
~I