6.4. SR 05-18-1998ity of
River
MEMORANDUM
Item # 6.4.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan~/l ×
May 18, 1998
Request by Tim Smith for Variance,
Public Hearing Case No. V 98-3
Request
Consider a request by Tim Smith for a variance request to the 75 foot
shoreline setback requirement.
Location
13192 192na Avenue, Lot 1, Block1, Island View 4tn Addition
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 an approximately 44' X 80' (3520 sf.)
pole building and attached lean to. The DNR protected stream which is
located adjacent to the proposed building requires a 75 foot setback. The
applicant is proposing a 20 foot setback, which requires the granting of a 55
foot variance. According to the applicant, the property on which the building
is proposed to be located has been or soon will be combined with other
properties owned by the applicant for a total acreage of about 35 acres.
The proposed location is also within the 100 year flood plain. The base flood
elevation in this area is 877 feet. The elevation at the building site is
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 98-3
May 18, 1998
Page 2
approximately 872 feet, 5 feet below the base flood elevation. The Flood Plain
Ordinance requires that building floor be elevated to 878 feet and an area
extending out 15 feet from the building be elevated to 877 feet. The extent of
the fill would be within 5 feet of the stream.
The proposed location is also within the 50 foot easement which is in place
over the stream. If the applicant is allowed to place the structure in the
proposed location a easement vacation will be necessary.
Variance
Staff refers the Council to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk River Code of
Ordinances for the five standards to consider when reviewing a 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.
o
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 in keeping with spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Since the applicant has a number of alternative locations to place the
proposed building which comply with the 75 foot setback requirement, the
literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause any undue hardship. Any
perceived hardship is a result of the applicant's own action in that he began
construction of the building prior to receiving a building permit.
E\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-3cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 98-3
May 18, 1998
Page 3
Shoreline Management Ordinance
According to the Shoreline Management Ordinance, when considering a
variance request in shoreline areas, the Council shall also consider the
following:
1. Whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the
variance;
2. whether the property is used seasonally or year-round;
3. whether the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic
considerations; and
4. the characteristics of development on adjacent properties.
Since the applicant's plans for farming the property can be done without the
granting of the variance, the property owner has reasonable use of the
property without the variance. The proposed use will be year-round storage of
construction equipment and personal items and not seasonal use. It is not
clear if the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic
considerations. There are other structures, specifically greenhouses, on
adjacent property which do not meet the 75 foot setback requirement.
In his letter the applicant states that he will address environmental concerns
such as runoff from the proposed building by directing it to a holding pond
and possible ground water contamination by placing a plastic mat
underneath the floor of the building. He states that he will be planting a tree
farm on the acres just to the west of the proposed building. The proposed
location for the building, according to the applicant, is too wet for farming but
is suitable as a building site. This application has been forwarded to the DNR
for their comments.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
At the April 28th Board of Adjustment meeting no one spoke at the public
hearing. The Board discussed the merits of the request and voted 4:2:1 to
deny the variance request.
Recommendation
There are several issues that are a concern regarding this application.
There is no hardship, which is one of the principle criteria for granting a
variance. The applicant has indicated that in his letter.
f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-3cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 98-3
May 18, 1998
Page 4
The proposed location is also within a flood plain. Construction within the
flood plain requires a building floor elevation that is at or above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation, which in this case is 878 feet. The
applicant would have to raise the building site by 6 feet. The finished fill
elevation is 877 feet and this elevation has to be extended 15 feet from the
building, bringing it to within 5 feet of the DNR protected stream.
The proposed location will encroach into the drainage easement which is
in place over the stream. This will require the granting of an easement
vacation vacating a portion of the drainage easement.
When compared to the issues identified in the Shoreline Ordinance as
being applicable when considering a variance to the shoreline setback, the
applicant did not show that he would not have reasonable use of the land
without the variance and the proposed use of the property will be year-
round, not seasonal.
It is recommended the City Council deny this variance request based on the
following findings:
1. The applicant did not show that he would suffer any hardship by strict
application of the zoning ordinance.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property without the granting of
the variance.
3. The proposed location is within the flood plain and would require raising
the building floor elevation by 6 feet and extending fill to within 5 feet of
the stream, thereby increasing the possibility of impact upon the DNR
protected stream.
f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-3cc.doc
LOCATION
LOCATION
MAP
,j
:L
/
LiNE THE
N O'09'O..q" E
0 ' 09' 09'
£o.f. £9
~0
WO?O~
· 09 "E
March 27, 1998
403 Main Street
Elk River~ MN. 55330
Elk River City Hall
13065 Orono Road
Elk River, MN. 55330
Dear Sirs:
Although, I may or may not meet all the criteria, I have
been able to meet the cn!y concerns or reasons as to why the
barn cannot be placed there at the present time. The only
3 reasons given to me by the City are as follows:
#1. Water runoff: This possible problem can be alleviated
by placing a small birm around the building and forcing the
water to run to ~ holding pond.
#2 Easement: In case machinery would need to get in to
work on the ditches. There will be plenty of room for a
very large tr~ck-hce to get in ~nd maneuver. I also own the
land on both sides of the creek all the way so there would
be access iregard!ess.
#3 Ground water contamination: If this is truly a concern,
I can place a plastic matt underneath the floor.
These are the only issues that the planers could come up
with and I was able to meet each objection with a plyable an-
swer. This is the best spct fcr this barn as I will be
planting a tree farm this summer plus the location of this
barn will be an area that will be too wet to get into every
Spring. However, I can drive in there on a Class ~5 driveway,
so access fcr a vehicle won't be a problem.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Timothy Smith