Loading...
4.1. BASR 04-28-1998 Item# 4.1. ty of � MEMORANDUM lkRiver TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan . f4 DATE: April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: 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 192nd Avenue, Lot 1, Blockl, Island View 4th 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 s£) 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 approximately 872 feet, 5 feet below the base flood elevation. The Flood Plain 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O.Box 490 • Elk River,MN 55330 • TDD&Phone: (612)441-7420 • Fax: (612)441-7425 Memo to Planning Commission/V 98-3 April 28, 1998 Page 2 • 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. 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. 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. Shoreline Management Ordinance According to the Shoreline Management Ordinance, when considering a variance request in shoreline areas, the Board shall also consider the following: 1. Whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the 1111 variance; \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-3.doc Memo to Planning Commission/V 98-3 April 28, 1998 Page 3 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. 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. 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. 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. However, the adjacent property to the east has 5 greenhouses that do not meet the setback requirement. The applicant has indicated in his letter that he would handle runoff from the building by directing it to a \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-3.doc Memo to Planning Commission/V 98-3 April 28, 1998 Page 4 . holding pond and possible groundwater contamination could be controlled by placing a plastic mat underneath the gravel floor. It is recommended the Board of Adjustment 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, thereby increasing the possibility of impact upon the DNR protected stream. • S \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-3.doc . 1.41.0'\ . 1 , ....). , : ,. , I ),- j ..as 7 Pr/,,:,./ / ; , i V .,\.. X M i 1• .,...„- , __„--,-,.. ,••............. . ; • •,.. „., , 7. im pi ,.... 7401 , �, E t ii VIM SWIM MEM VINO , ; , \ot, , . ,.......r, N.i 3 ' ..- CITY i a. 60. <- o 0• 6 r m � �4 C. Is cn W Aa �w, °2 cn e , - p' 1 m T O. / 1 �� a .• Tj ; ... ti,-, i i e.rn m a y ill I n \ a .r• ,, 0 I / H 0 r A• rtlfrt NI ;.14 La soo9o9 'w ii CI t�i� �' — `� (� W —201 .29 — 1 so rn p s25.4.; - . - �', y Q) '�1� i—LXGCCN 1 rr,try OF THE 4so.00 FT �—=1/7.57 m a� , m �' --� ' O of THE N!/2 OF THE SE 1/4 n, 1 rn v , ,O . I GiF THE SW 1/4 ' ti _ i % ° r∎r■ e,J a o m♦ r j 0// rn my A\`' , e oe °e' Jp 1(` � m ._i 414 . i Ai &) O � .-) • 101 N _`\ DITCH -'av"�e.-� o m .�� . iv -- t. I W —- 1, �•- �, g \ \ m , f/� r r uz 1/2(P\0; • \_ ' P.,..... - ..._ . er\�a - \ ■ ko v ao- I . r — b 1, o m g a 1 arl m l ,I 1?f.., 4 � I I cO RI ,� a 1 r uro THE �''137.22 ''' t � r") - ►NO r 09 '09"E•It/4 E E N 0.09 '09a L i :rIy a a 1. : I ° T�m G ^'1�tx� N w I a .��, O mm a I� 17 33 I 33 ti �< N Al �1 � ■ 0 n,' Icy. ( . • \----,-.- C.) , EMI NI N ill awn y 01 y a 1 v. O A. A ic.,,,, CA I S �44rC /.„ • 4.483,8); P,R4 '"'0taN r©P4eyAL8Icf11/144'>jf 'uomPni Aip-1 •i1T5ylLgeti© a 0"-1z X■ <yA�AO-1`.►1 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 only 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 a 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 track-hoe to get in and maneuver . I also own the land on both sides of the creek all the way so there would be access iregardless . #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 spot for 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 for a vehicle won ' t be a problem. Thank you . Sincerely, 411 Timothy Smith