3.1. BASR 09-29-1998 Item# 3.1.
ty of MEMORANDUM
lk River TO: Board of Adjustments
FROM: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assista
DATE: September 29, 1998
SUBJECT: Request for Variance by Midwest
Building Components for Variance,
Public Hearing Case No. V 98-11
Request
Consider a request by Midwest Building Components for a variance to the 10
foot parking setback requirement
Location
• Northwest corner of King Avenue and Main Street
Zoning/Land Use
Cl (Central Commercial) / CB (Central Business)
Attachments
• Location map
• Site plan
• Letter from applicant
Overview
Midwest Building Components is requesting a variance to the 10 foot parking
setback requirement along the west and north property lines. The applicant
is proposing a one foot setback on the west property line and 5 feet on the
north property line. The setback variance is being requested as part of an
overall site plan to construct a 23,040 square foot office building.
•
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD &Phone: (612)441-7420 • Fax: (612)441-7425
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-11
September 29, 1998
Page 2
• Variance
Staff refers the Board 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the
petitioner's own action or inaction.
5. 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.
The applicant states the hardship is that by requiring a 10 foot setback on
the north and west sides there would not be enough room to allow for two
way traffic flow. The proposed layout of the site is what creates the situation
where a variance is needed. If the parking lot was layout was revised and the
distance between the parking lot and the building reduced, there would be
enough room on the west side to meet the 10 foot setback requirement. There
is 66 feet between the proposed location of the building and the west property
line. If 10 feet is subtracted for the setback, 24 feet subtracted for the aisle
and 18 feet subtracted for the parking stall, there is 14 feet left between the
parking lot and the building. On the proposed plan there is approximately 20
feet between the parking lot and the building.
On the north side, if the building was shifted 5 feet to the south, the
applicant would be able to meet the 10 foot setback requirement on the north
side. However, the variance is needed on the north side in order to allow the
placement of the building as shown on the site plan reviewed by the Planning
Commission and HRA.
•
s:\planning\scott\v98-11.doc
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-11
September 29, 1998
Page 3
• The applicant feels the special conditions and circumstances which are
peculiar to the property is that if the variance is not granted, the orderly flow
of traffic on the site and off site will be adversely affected. Again, with
modifications to the proposed site plan two way traffic flow can be provided
as can the 10 foot setback.
The applicant states the literal enforcement of the ordinance would deprive
them of rights enjoyed by other property owners in that adjacent businesses
do not comply with the parking setback requirements. The school district
parking lot is setback 7 feet; the parking lot for the medical office to the west
is setback about 3 feet, and the parking lot for First National Bank on the
east side of King Avenue does not meet the 10 foot parking setback.
The applicant feels the need for the variance is a result of existing conditions
and the placement of the existing curb cut on Main Street, and is not caused
by any action or inaction on their part. Because of the size and condition of
the existing curb cut a new one will have to be installed. Therefore, the
existing curb cut will not impact the location of the driveway. Since the site is
currently vacant, any hardship is due to the applicant's desire for a specific
site plan. Modifications to the site plan could eliminate the need for a
• variance and still allow the applicant reasonable development of the
property.
The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the health safety or
welfare of the residents of the city.
Recommendation
It is recommended the Board of Adjustment deny the variance request based
on the following findings:
1. The literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship.
With minor revisions to the site plan, such as adjusting the configuration
of the parking lot and the location of the building, the 10 foot setback
could be met on both the north and west property lines.
2. The hardship is not 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 property is vacant so any perceived hardship is a result of the
applicant's desire for a specific site plan.
s:\planning\scott\v98-11.doc
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-11
September 29, 1998
Page 4
• 3. The special conditions and circumstances are a consequence of the
petitioner's own action or inaction.
•
•
s:\planning\scott\v98-11.doc
. .tra. T-..A4,,aili ...11M .. Ap. 16-Vm A 7 ,.
i
! s pri rci si ter•
lin® .�• rF�. 9 v .• =BF IT,
.4014II 111L o �
r 1■Lii 09§11IIIIMitk El ‘• Si. "Ir a: ktfA% '44•41 11•443sin
a � ; ��R �1 p, rl `� `A'!w, v '
. 4. ii
We
lal -11111 mr..ii di
"....N.Nr
��' • ' , __ _. .�I� i:i: !� SILO J«0��0 lik,-- �4 �c.nr!CF,(' ::pf>� I=� ilia {tV,��pI, �_. i 4:060%
t,6—filth
nisi .!�•..1:w•••!► ` � •• Eu*n.. :wSI;e. M ,r. L. .. giOr
4.1. FS�IJ lsftW■Ib- . N ��P� �.r. •es r7Ka.0 C mar_ 71c:
_ +.'
.0 `��" �® 'llf? p"a 1111... *VOW .�iN1► �.7�
�-� ,ff�,,.Y OIL Mel:. I ..,� �a 1' �' ��"L re Via,:::
*A �t 'ru{v true� .1� '�∎1 it 1:14. ~-M 111!11 = .✓` *tom ��
-law' „..,_ it#119 NI r_.�/E%�/�1� q%E ��h� � ••n un: tt�u to.`� �ilis �:���� •a �►� n��"E .'''1111 1.,.q, ....
4.%01 i? \ ' m .bay' 1.=il 1A:mttliileVst i,
in�l t:+�r
LOCATION iWt — -
17;n4 \',,, c,
,---,.. . .
_..„,...........„
177TH ,
7,4 0
..,
..„
1 H I § 1 I t g a g i 1 § 170/4
\
`{ •/ ZONING 1 V
City � ' ('
E1IL River
13065 Orono Parkway •P.O. Box 490 CASE: V 4 9 11
Elk River,MN 55330
P
?5i 1 m .... 40:c
g ill;• 1 < i I 1 iii il I 1111
w
Dw
w-
Z O l)N
0 J w Ilp /1 W V)
V Z W 6 W
mS -J a. ' X X
Z 0 V O a `O Q c.?-a 0 d
Mz w - 1i><¢ a
V. l
O O Vi V1 V)
-, 0 M 0 0 0-t )uI
x x K O M N
0 x O R
Y N N M N
t0 M N M
t
CI
Z
V' z N n t= H
o -1 O p
ao [D t> r
>< X j N t7 0 0
Z Z Z
o K W S Y
°a °d o Cr a a
f
3f1N3AV JNI>I
• -----.. r--'-\ i 01n1305)l(0 3N
[ , - —� 7
I \ t
1 o>!. („)
a ,,
0196
�l�ll I 2 w d
25 V) m R
rkEl
(/1� N
I = $
0 I
V
CD
�
I
l
•
•
\ .
L
MIMI
• ■ Midwest Building Components, Inc. DO E II
1
• 7210- 163rd Avenue NW, Ramsey, MN 55303 • Phone: (612)576-3926• Fax: (612)422-9172
City of Elk River Zoning Board
13065 Orono Parkway
PO Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330 •
September 2, 1998 .
Dear Sirs;
Midwest Building Components Inc. is requesting a variance from the existing ordinance
requiring a 10 lot line setback on our proposed office building project located at the
intersection of King and Main streets.
1. The 10 foot set back requirement on the west and north side of the property would
require a one way driveway creating unnecessary restrictions to the flow of traffic at
• and around the building.
2. This would create problems relating to the orderly flow of traffic on the existing
streets and at the site location.
3. Adjacent lots to the west and north presently have '`0"lot line parking and MBC,
Inc.'s request would not present any unusual situation.
4. These are already existing conditions and have not been caused by any action or
inaction of the petitioners and would use existing curb cuts for street access from the
project.
5. The request for variance would not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of
the residents of the city and will be keeping with the spirit of the ordinance along
with what the city is trying to accomplish.
Respectfully yours,ee,„j,,,..,_____,-
caft Clark Carlson
Midwest Building Components, Inc.
•