6.7. SR 10-20-1997ity of
iver
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Item # 6.7.
Mayor and City Council
Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan~
October 20, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for Variance by Tim Smith,
Public Hearing Case No. V 97-9
Request
Consider a request by Tim Smith for a 3788 s.f. variance request to exceed
the 1200 square foot maximum accessory structure area for the Rlb district
and to the architectural standards in the Rlb district to construct a metal
pole building.
Location
13241 Island View Drive
Zoning/Land Use
Rlb (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential)
Attachments
· Location map
· Site Plan
· Letter from applicant
Overview
The applicant is proposing to construct a 50 X 80 (4000s.f.) pole building in
order to store his recreation and construction equipment. His property is
zoned Rlb which has a 1200 square foot limit on total accessory structure(s)
area. The applicant has 988 square foot attached garage. Including the
proposed pole building the total accessory structure area is 4988 square feet,
exceeding the maximum allowed by 3788 square feet. The proposed building
will be a metal exterior pole building which is not allowed in the Rlb district.
f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\v97-9cc.doc
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 97-9
October 20, 1997
Page 2
The property on which the structure will be located is part of Island View
4th Add., a 4 lot residential subdivision approved in April 1997. It is a 8.68
acre lot with frontage on 192nd Avenue ( County Rd. 35).The applicant's
house is located on a parcel directly south of the lot on which the proposed
structure will be located. The applicant is planning on combining the 8.68
acre parcel with the one that his house is on. Once the lots are combined, he
will have a 14.24 acre lot. He has to combine the lots because the lot on which
he would like to build the accessory structure does not have a principle
structure. If the City Council should decide to grant the variance request, a
condition of the approval should be that the lots are combined prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Variance
A variance may be granted only if it meets the following five conditions:
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which
are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are
not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the
same area.
The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would
deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this ordinance.
The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the
petitioner's own action or inaction.
The variance 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 and will be in keeping with spirit and
intent of the ordinance.
In his letter the applicant indicates he needs the 50' X 80' pole building to
store recreation and construction equipment. He also states that the reason
he needs to construct the pole barn is because the soils are not suitable for a
conventional stick frame structure. His main point seems to be that the
requirements for maximum square feet for accessory structure should be
based solely on the size of the lot, not on what the property is zoned. By
differentiating between the Rla and the Rlb districts, he feels the residents
that own larger lots that are zoned Rlb are treated differently and that is
unfair.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v97-9cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City CouncilN 97-9
October 20, 1997
Page 3
The applicant does not fully explain how his request meets the five criteria
for granting a variance. He states that the hardship is that the property is
zoned Rlb and that accessory structures are subject to different requirements
in the Rlb district than they are in the Rla district. He indicates that he
needs almost 5000 square feet of accessory building area for storing, among
other things, construction equipment that he uses in his construction
business.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on August 26, 1997 no one spoke at
the public hearing. The Board discussed the applicant's situation. They
appreciated his problem but did not believe that he met the 5 criteria needed
for granting a variance. The Board denied the request but recommended that
the applicant request an ordinance amendment to address this type of
situation or request a rezoning to Rla. The Board also recommended that if
the applicant decides to apply for the ordinance amendment or rezoning, the
fees should be waived.
Recommendation
The Board of Adjustment and staff recommend the City Council deny this
variance request based on the following findings:
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL
CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP.
A 50' X 80' POLE BARN AND THE STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WOULD
BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THIS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
o
THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTION. IN THIS CASE, THE
CONDITIONS ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO STORE
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, THAT HE USES IN HIS CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AT HIS
RESIDENCE
0
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WHICH HAS DIFFERENT
STANDARDS THAN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v97-9cc.doc
LOCATION
~ LOCATION
Ell4~River MAP
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490
Elk River. MN 55330
LAKE:
CASE: V qT-q
/.gu~.. ~lZ uM
LoT 3..1/~ .
ELK I~ZV~(,
·
:ELS -,
~,v 5 !/2 e
, ·
I I.,o' ·
I
,4'
.I
JO°
· ' J
- N 8,2 *£0 '£4 ' ~
~_I9~ND AVE,_.
LOT 37/!
ELK R,IVeTL ~ ~3~ ~
;
LOT
JAC~ g. D~ILtt"Y
13J30 l~' 1/.~ LAM[
ELK A~YI~I.
LOT 7/2
~u. ~(ZgffTs' INC.
~ ~._.. . ~ ·
~.~
~y A. ~ .~
ssse~ s~ s/~. ~
ROAD NO.
. _., ,
_ - J~J ' 114 '"...
,,,. sOUTH LINE OF THE' H l/2 OF THE $ I/~ ,' '~'
OF THE E. 450.00 FT. ,~ SW
~. ~;2 OF T/.~ SE '/4 0F THc-
..... r IA,f
W79.4,
W
748. g~ - -
..3
'~/~
,/
775.; --
.._. pONO
TOP ICE ELEV. ' 877.4
OH JAN. 27. jgg7
..,----rc~',q FICIlIN~'c; pARC~[- L ANO oFINEFI$:
ri
Ig7. ,.,1
,sLY,e,/'w ~ ~
I
+
July 14, 1997
To Whom It May Concern,
The city has adopted a zoning ordinance in a R-lb area which differs from a R-la, to the extent
that even ff a person has acreage, he can no longer build a pole barn. This ordinance disallows both
metal structures or outbuildings of any sort exceeding a maximum of 1200 sq. fi. combined (inclusive of
your own garage). This general blanket rule is a poor nde in that a farm or large acre area has to apply
for a variance in order to keep a persons equipment out of the weather. This particular rule should be
changed to be applied the same as a R-la district. R-la districts allow a person an accessory building in
accordance to the amount of property owned. I understand that the ordinance is there to protect against
the building ora large barn where there is a chance ora development going in and the barn taking up
valuable space for future construction sites but, this pole barn will be built in an area that can't be built on
even in the future. In your ordinance it states 20-30 acres allows a 6,000 sq. ft. total attached and
detached accessory building. As there are still many people who own large tracts of land in the R-lb
district, I would like to propose that you change this ordinance to match the R-la district. These barns
also help to keep the land from looking like a junk yard by storing many items inside. I own
approximately 35 acres of land and would like. to be able to store my equipment out of site and the
weather. I have 5 trailers, 5 snowmobiles, a tractor, a dump truck, a plow truck, a bobcat, 2 boats, a
camper, and many misc. construction equipment. With out this pole barn much of my equipment has to
sit outside, besides being damaged by the weather, also being an eyesore. I propose to build tiffs pole barn
in an area where only a few people will be able to see it. I have spoken with most of my neighbors who
will be able to see the building and they don't have a problem with it. This building will only be seen by 5
people besides myself. I also propose to build this in an area which will not be suitable for housing in the
future. The granting of a variance would not harm anyone, nor would it be an eyesore, nor either would it
be out of place as I have 35 acres. I meet all 5 of the criteria requested in the application. As far as the
metal structure, the soils are not suitable for a conventional "stick frame" structure, it is standard practice
to build them pole style.
Sincerely,
Timothy A. Smith