Loading...
09-28-1999 BA MIN • MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 Members Present: Chair Cote, Commissioners Chambers, Kuester, Thompson and Schuster Members Absent: Commissioner Mesich Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Cote. 2. Consider 9/28/99 Board of Adjustments Agenda COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1999, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. 411 THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consider 8/24/99 Board of Adjustments Minutes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 24, 1999, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4.1. Request by Scott & Kathy Thompson for a Variance from the Shoreland Setback for Pintail Pond, Public Hearing Case No. V 99-12 Staff report by Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner. Scott and Kathy Thompson have requested a 20 foot variance to the 150 foot shoreline setback to allow construction of a home at 12692 208th Avenue, Lot 12, Block 2, Greenhead Acres 2nd Addition. Mr. Harlicker explained that the property was platted prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1979 and the lot was configured in accordance with the zoning regulations in effect at the time. Staff recommended approval of the variance based on the 8 findings in the staff report. Chair Cote opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Cote closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY SCOTT AND KATHY THOMPSON FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 150 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK FROM • PINTAIL POND, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. V 99-12, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: Board of Adjustments Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 2 • 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP IN THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THEIR HOUSE. 2. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PARTICULAR TO THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED WHICH ARE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF, OR APPLICABLE TO, OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME AREA. 3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE HOUSES THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE 150 FOOT SETBACK. 4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION.THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE A RESULT OF THE DESIGN OF THE LOT AND THE APPROVED PLAT. 5. THE GRANTING OF 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 THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. 6. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. • 7. THE VARIANCE IS NOT BEING REQUESTED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. 8. THE PROPOSED HOUSE WOULD BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4.2. Request by Church of St. Andrew for a Variance, Public Hearing Case No. V 99-13 Staff report presented by Scott Harlicker. The Church of St. Andrew has requested a variance to reduce the setback from the property line from ten feet to 3 feet for placement of a sign. Staff recommended denial because the request did not meet the findings necessary for granting a variance. Mr. Harlicker reviewed alternate sites proposed by staff for location of the sign. Chair Cote opened the public hearing. Julie Kastendick, member of St. Andrew's Church representing the applicant, described the proposed sign. She reviewed photos of the alternate sites proposed by staff and explained why she did not feel any of these sites were appropriate. She stated that there are other businesses which have signs located at less than the required 10 foot setback. • Commissioner Kuester asked if the glass in the sign was breakable. Ms. Kastendick explained that the glass would be enclosed in Plexiglas. Board of Adjustments Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 3 II/ Ken Williams, resident on Brentwood Lane, representing St. Andrew's sign committee,stated that he felt it was appropriate to locate the sign on 4th Street since that is the church's address. Steve Stewart, 18290 Ogden Street, stated he felt the Commission should approve the location requested by the church, since it appears to be most suitable. Tom Kemper, Administrator for St. Andrew's Church, stated he felt the location was proposed by St. Andrew's would be the most visible and the alternate sites may be subject to future development which may requiring moving the sign. Ken Williams stated he felt the location in front of the old church proposed by staff would be confusing, since the school and administrative offices are at this site. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Cote closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kuester asked if the sign could be moved closer to the parking lot. Ms. Kastendick stated they did consider the possibility, but felt that snow plowing would be difficult. Also, some parking stalls may need to be taken out. Tom Kemper stated that the parish is growing at the rate of 200 families per year • and parking is at a "premium". COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CHURCH OF ST. ANDREW FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR A MONUMENT SIGN FROM A TEN FOOT SETBACK TO A THREE FOOT SETBACK, CITING THE INABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO MEET THE FOLLOWING FIVE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE: 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 BE IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND • INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. Board of Adjustments Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 4 • COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Commissioner Schuster opposed. 4.3. Request by Sherburne County to Waive the Screening Requirements for Jail Expansion, Public Hearing Case No. V 99-11 Staff report by Michele McPherson. Sherburne County requests approval of a variance to waive the 80%opacity screening requirement. Sherburne County was given site plan approval for the jail expansion, but after further review and meeting with adjacent residents, they wish to install a six foot fence around the perimeter of the jail and reduce the amount landscaping for security purpose. Staff felt the applicant can meet the five findings necessary for granting a variance and recommended approval of the request. Chair Cote opened the public hearing. Dick Halupsok, KKE architect representing the applicant, stated that safety issues prompted the request to allow less dense plantings and installation of the fence, citing the neighbors' concerns, as well as the pond near the parking lot. He also noted that the more dense landscaping previously proposed would interfere with monitoring of the grounds by sheriff's department personnel. Commissioner Kuester asked who would be using the parking lot. Mr. Halupsok stated that staff and impound lot employees would use this lot. • Steve Stewart, 18290 Ogden Street,stated that the residents have been working with Sherburne County on the jail issue. He felt that one of the homes in Sandpiper Estates was very close to the jail and the city should not have approved a home to be placed on this lot. He asked that the Planning Commission "do what is right", but he did not specify his position on the issue. Patty Patterson, 18268 Ogden Street, stated that she was not able to sell her home at the appraised value because of its close proximity to the jail, and took it off the market. She stated that she is satisfied with what the finished product will be. Chris Tenute, 18238 Ogden Street, was concerned that the impound lot be adequately screened so that the wrecked cars were not visible. Cindy Hoist, 18251 Ogden Street, asked how large the trees will be when they are planted. Mr. Halupsok stated that the conifers would be six feet tall and the overstory trees, including red maple, hackberry, honey locust and other specimens,will be 2" in diameter and approximately 10 feet tall. Chair Cote asked what the opacity would be with the new plan. Ms. McPherson stated that it would be approximately 10 percent. Ms. Hoist asked that the size of the trees required be increased. Jenny Wamre, 19233 Ogden Street, expressed her support for the 80%opacity requirement and felt the County should be required to make the site aesthetically • pleasing, since the residents have worked hard to make the neighborhood that way. Board of Adjustments Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 5 • Nicole Bahr, 18222 Ogden Street, stated she did not feel the city should not have allowed platting of residential property so close to the jail site. She stated that the jail expansion has had a very negative impact on her daycare business. Steve Stewart asked if landscaping or a berm could be placed around the perimeter of the site. Ms. Carey Oilman Everson of KKE Architects, explained that utility easements are located in that area. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Cote closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kuester asked what the opacity of the screening would be around the impound lot. Ms. McPherson estimated that it would be approximately 80%. Bruce Anderson, Sherburne County Sheriff, stated that when he met with the residents, they asked for a fence to provide separation of their property from the jail. As a result, the Sherburne County Board approved the expenditure of $25,000 for the fence. Commissioner Schuster felt the question before the Commission is which is more important—screening the jail from the residents, or their safety. Commissioner Chambers asked if the fence could be moved in closer to the jail and the plantings placed on the outside (residents' side) of the fence. Sheriff • Anderson indicated this option could be considered, as well as providing more trees and shrubs than was shown on the plan. Commissioner Kuester suggested that the County consider planting the trees on the residents' lots to screen the jail. Ms. McPherson stated this would be contrary to City policy, but could be done if all parties can come to some type of an agreement. Typically, the City requires screening to be planted on the "commercial" property, not the residential. Commissioner Thompson stated that she did not feel she could approve the variance without some solution to the safety concerns of the County and screening concerns of the neighbors. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY SHERBURNE COUNTY TO WAIVE THE 80%SCREENING REQUIREMENT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. V 99-11, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET: 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. • Board of Adjustments Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 6 • 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 BE IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Commissioner Cote opposed. 4.4. Request by City of Elk River for Lot Area Variance, Public Hearing Case No. V 99-14 Staff report by Michele McPherson. The City of Elk River requests approval of a lot area variance to reduce the lot area of an industrial lot from one acre to approximately .85 acres. Mr. George Deschenes would like to relocate his business on a .85 acre remnant from the condemnation of his property at 18513 Twin Lakes Road for the new north-south road (Tyler Street). Staff recommends approval of the request based on the findings listed in the staff report. Commissioner Kuester asked if the site would be connected to city sewer and water. Ms. McPherson stated that it would. Chair Cote asked if any of the adjacent right of way left from the existing County Road 13 could be added to the property. Terry Maurer, City Engineer, stated that there are easements for utilities located in theright of way and adding this property would not increase the buildable area of the lot. Chair Cote opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Cote closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM ONE ACRE TO .85 ACRE, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. V 99-14, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 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. • Board of Adjustments Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 7 S 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 BE IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /4-,) Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary • 110