Loading...
7.4. SR 02-27-1995r `t ~Y or lk~ River REQUEST MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ITEM 7.4 FROM: Gary Schmitz, Planning Assistant ~ ~p~ DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request by Paul LeFebvre, Public Hearing Case No. V 94-18 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 January 24, 1995 memo to the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND Paul LeFebvre is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum area of allowed accessory structures. Mr. LeFebvre's parcel is in the R1a 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 involves adding a 20 ft. by 50 ft. (1,000 sq. ft.) addition to the existing 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN SS330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 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. The details of this request along with a summary of the accessory structure ordinance are included in the attached memo to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission concurred with staffs findings and recommended denial of Mr. LeFebvre's request based upon the fact that this particular request does not meet the findings of hardship for a variance: Recommendation Although staff sympathizes with Mr. LeFebvre's request to store his motor home indoors, it is staff's 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 structure causing the need for a variance. s:council:v94-18 • 3. The 2,000 sq. ft. accessory structure area standard was developed for the R1a 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. • • s:council:v94-18 ~~r ~~ ~~ 'ty of ~~ lk • River TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 5.3. GARY SCHMITZ, PLANNING ASST. 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 c~ 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 Rla 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 -------------------------------------------- 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 apart-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 staff's 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 • 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 • 2 r_i F ~\2• 2 4 < W 3 a N 1 X11 ~ ~ ~ y . '~ . / ,' ~- ~ a - ? ~~ uTr ,. ~:. . PARK ,I 4 ~. ~~\ I'~ I ! it I ~~lll~~ ~aca~ioN 4 Rte To ZONING MAP O ~0 `~ 'Y ' c ^ .~.~...~.~. •.~ ...~... 3 ....... .... ~.'.'.'.' 1 ..'.'.'. R1a ~:~:~:::~:~:~: 1 ~ Z .. ~.~.~.~ W K ~ ~ TH ~ u x H . .. ... 4 ... .... :.: •: •.'.. •t O' ...... •. ...'.,. . . ': ~ .. '. ••••••••• ••••••'• 1 ~ ~ ~ ..... ~' i W ~ v4Ph. \ iP. i W .O•,S .•.~.~. Y~.~~~ ~ ' ' ~ a'~ ~Or P_ _. _'.......~ ..~ ... ~ ~ ~~ Ciry~~oi a ~lli ~ • Rev ~~ P.O. Box 490 • 1306 Orono Par -~. ~AS~ V 9~-18 • Eik 'v i -: :~-. ,~~~~ • ~ ~° ~~ r E I.. E~ATI 4 t1 0 ~~ o ems. P ~P.r~ -s..~'- ~,._-. ~„~ : ~.- ~.~~-: ~- . ~ :,;;~ .,,4:.._ '~~ :., ~~~. - ~-z-,~..;. • December 21,1994 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