4. BASR 06-12-2007h1k REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
To Item Number
Board of Adjustments 4
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Planning Items June 12, 2007 Chris Leesebex , Park Planner
Item Description Reviewed by
Consider Request by Jeff Bickman for setback variance, Case I JeremyBarnhart, Planning Manager
No. V 07-04, Public Hearing I Reviewed by
Action Requested
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments approve the variance requests, as illustrated on
drawings dated 4-30-07, with the following conditions:
1. The existing shed that is not entirely on the property shall be removed before
construction of the new garage is started.
2. All comments of the Environment Administrators memo dated May 23, 2007 shall be
addressed.
3. A 15-foot minimum setback shall be established from the front property line.
Attachments
• Location Map
• Applicant's Narrative
• Environmental Administrators Memo
• Aerial
• Original Poposal
• Current Proposal (what is being reviewed)
Case File: V 07-04
Page 2
Variance
Jeff Bickman
General Information
Applicant
Jeff Bickman
60 Day Rule
The application has been deemed complete as of May 10, 2007.
The City must take action by June 30, 2007
Requested Action
Variance from the front yard setback
Location and Size
Approximately .41-acres.
Location
Existing Use
Land Use Plan Designation
Current Zoning
Subject
Property
Single Family
UR
R1c
North
Single Family
UR
R1c
South
Lake
Lake
Lake
East
Single Family
UR
R1c
West
Single Family
UR
R1c
Overview
The applicant is pursuing purchasing the subject property (located on Lake Orono) contingent on
receiving a variance to allow a new garage to encroach in the front yard setback. The current
property owner has given consent on the application and if granted, the variance will be for the
property and not for a specific owner.
The proposed variance is to allow an attached garage to be within the 30-foot front yard setback (a
15 foot variance). The proposed setback would not encroach into the setback anymore than the
existing garage/carport already does.
The property is zoned R1-c which has the following garage setbacks:
Front: 30-feet
Side: 5-feet
Rear: 50-feet from the ordinary high water mark.
With the exception of the front yard setback, the proposed garage meets all of the required setbacks.
The existing garage/carport is approximately 15-feet from the front property line. The applicant is
asking for a 15-foot variance to the front yard setback requirements, which would be consistent with
the existing structure.
S:\PL.ANNING\Case Files\Variance\V 07-04 Bickman\V 07-04_BA.doc
Case File: V 07-04
Page 3
Variance
Jeff Bickman
The existing garage does not meet the city's requirement of having a garage at least 440 sgft in size
and without a front yard variance, the property could not support a new garage to meet this
minimum requirement.
During the staff site plan review, it was indicated that the applicant would also need a variance for
the amount of impervious surface being proposed. The memo from the Environmental
Administrator outlines this.
Applicable Regulations
Variance Criteria
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
Literal enforcement would not allow a functional new structure or one that would meet the city's
minimum requirements of square footage.
2. The hardship is caused by Oecial conditions and circumstances which arepeculiar to the_iroperU and the
structure involved and which are not characteristic of or yAblicable to other lands or structure in the same area
The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the
property. Due to small lot size, lake setbacks, access to the rear of the propety and the property
being located on a cul-de-sac the site has limited buildable area. The development in which the
property is located is an older established neighborhood. Since the structures were built, there
may have been ordinance changes, as there are other structures in the area that encroach in the
current front yard setback requirements.
3. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the -petitioner's own action or inaction.
The conditions are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction.
4. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would derive the -petitioner of rights enoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
Without a front yard variance, the property could not construct a new functional garage or one
that meets the city's minimum requirement. The variance would not establish inconsistency with
the neighborhood character.
S. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely a ect the health sa e or wel are of the residents of the city or
the neighborhood where the4nWeM is located and will be in keeling with spirit and intent of the ordinance
The request will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the
residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is located.
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\Variance\V 07-04 Bickman\V 07-04_BA.doc
Case File: V 07-04
Page 4
Variance
Jeff Bickman
Respectfully Submitted
Chris Leeseberg
Park Planner / Planner
Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\Variance\V 07-04 Bickman\V 07-04_BA.doc
City of
El
River
Location Map N
Case Number: V 07-04 BICKMAN
Variance Appeal of Zoning Decision Application:
Site:
18575 Simonet Drive NW
Elk River, Mn
After review of the property survey of 18575 Simonet Drive, it was noted that the
property has a unique road access or property line junction which is creating
approximately 15 additional feet of set back from the road. Given this, the existing shed,
garage and carport are currently not within the setback requirements.
This proposal is being respectfully written in hopes that the Elk River Planning
Commission and or City Council will consider the following issues and accept the
attached drawing as evidence of planned property improvements.
As seen in the attached drawing, it is not my intent to infringe further into the set back
then the current structure already does. The existing garage and car port will be removed
and installed in its place will be a structure (garage and main entry) that is attached to the
home. In doing so, it is also my intent to remove the existing shed (not currently within
the required setbacks, or completely on this property) to allow for a more appealing
boulevard. With this proposed change, the property would include what it noticeably
lacked, adequate storage for an automobile and necessary snow removal / lawn care
equipment.
This proposed property improvement is also an investment in the neighborhood and
community. This enhancement will align this home well with the typical standard of
homes built today; complete with an entry protected from the elements. Not having an
attached garage significantly reduces the value of this home and doesn't allow for the
same rights enjoyed by other property owners in the same neighborhood.
In closing I respectfully request your consideration of this proposal, as it will result in the
much needed attention to this parcel. These updates will not only increase the property
value of this home, it will also add value to the homes in the community. The increased
value in these homes will reflect positively on the City of Elk River with the potential for
increased tax revenue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeff Bickman
W�A E �:, !' C>F W E ®
:5v- 07
city
E
ver
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Leeseberg, Planner
FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator
DATE: May 23, 2007
SUBJECT: V 07-04 — Bickman garage variance
The proposed variance application must meet the Division 12. Shoreland Management,
Sec. 20-2025. Stormwater Management standard for impervious surface coverage. The
limitations must not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. According to my calculations,
the variance for the garage would not be in compliance with the above mentioned
section of the ordinance as it would result in approximately 30 percent of the lot area
being impervious surface. If the property owner can show that they are able to handle
the excess runoff by installing alternatives such as rain gardens or porous pavers, both of
which would have to be engineered, the variance could be granted. If you have any
questions, please let me know. Thank you for the opportunity to review the
application.
6-11-07
City of Elk River
Board of Adjustments
Garage Variance for Bickman
Case No. V 07-04
I am working with Jeff Bickman on installing a properly sized rain
garden on his future property to collect and treat water from the
newly proposed garage and driveway. There is not yet a completed
design, but the process has been started. Once the variance is
passed, I will complete the design of the rain garden. The rain
garden will be designed to compensate for the excessive impervious
surface (5% over the allowed value based on the Memo dated
May23, 2007 from Rebecca Haug). We will attempt to collect and
treat even more then the 5% currently required. If there are any
questions you can contact me @ 763-253-2511 or
chrism@dundeenursery. com.
Chris McCullough
Dundee Nursery Design/Sales
763-253-2511
zs-6 -5
-47
A/w -7t i)
rA
� 1
\ i/Tl
lA/
\ ~ i
\ rTl
\ i\ /rl
t"
4 s
l . As ( \�
rTl
Ir
'° mac:-.=-=„�'� r � !r 'S ....., •' -`� i ,r-' � Ji1, /t r>
iyl � a _ ..1._--' .rl'` ` , \ ;..mot'' -' - .aS '• \ \
`\� �: I ,•� _ , . �`f ,ate . � r > .�
yv� _\ ,., 'v�/ I '� j. �; 1S"iv •n / 1. �•!' � � ,'`�
rJ 'Tl
i 1: 4
�10
,e It
a
� I 1
i
ml
t
� �
ID
a
�
oat,
°°'
Se 4�
�S l