2.0. BASR 12-12-2006 City of
Elk.
River
City of Elk River Item Number
REQUEST FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 2
ACTION
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Board of Adjustments December 12, 2006 Jeremy Barnhart,Planning Manager
Item Description Reviewed by
Consider Request by Elk River Investments,LLC for a 201 ft lot
frontage variance,Public Hearing Case No.V 06-06
Location
Generally located at 217th Avenue and Highway 169,on the east side of Highway 169.
Introduction
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the subdivision of land with a lot frontage dimension less
than 300 feet, as required by ordinance.
ill Attachments
• Request for Action
• Location Map
• Applicants Narrative
• Site Plan
Action Requested
Staff is recommending the Board of Adjustment approve of the request.
Board of Adjustments Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
•
Case File:V 06-06
Page 2
• Zoning: A-1 (ME) (Agriculture Conservation,Mineral Excavation)
Land Use: Commercial Reserve (CR)
Adjacent N-Al (ME) Adjacent N-CR
Zoning: E—Al (ME) Land Use: E—Rural Res.
S—Al (ME) S - CR
W—Al (ME) W-M
Site Area: 95 acres
Conforms: Land Use Plan—No (Yes if approved)
Zoning Code—No (variance required)
Subdivision Code—Yes
60 Day Rule:Action must be taken on this request by December 30,2006
Overview
The applicant desires to final plat the property, consolidating 4 existing parcels into 3 new parcels.
• One of the parcels will provide approximately 100 feet of lot frontage. The Ordinance requires each
lot in the A-1 zoning district to have at minimum 300 feet of frontage, and be 10 acres in size.
Before the final plat can be acted on, the variance question needs to be answered. Typically, a final
plat and a variance are reviewed concurrently if a precedent has been established that clearly outlines
the Boards or Council direction on a given issue. While staff supports the application,no precedent
has been established to support the expense toward a final plat.
The subject property is located in the Commercial Reserve area. The Comprehensive Plan placed
two areas of the community, and several hundred acres, in reserve for future commercial
development. No criteria were established for land use and subdivision in the Commercial Reserve
areas. Staff is currently developing language for the Planning Commission and City Council's
discussion regarding the land use and subdivision in the Commercial reserve areas.
Analysis
The Zoning Ordinance is established to further the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Because no regulations have been created to address the issue of changing land uses in the
Commercial reserve , the Commission and Council should look at the intent of the district and
consider if the variance,if granted would further the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
111/
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2006\Variance\V 06-06 ER Investments\V 06-06_BA.doc
Case File:V 06-06
Page 3
• Variance Criteria
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
Literal enforcement would likely cause undue hardship, as the regulations in place may be
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the property.
2. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the propery and the
structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area.
The hardship is created by the ordinance not prescribing requirements that appear to be
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. This is unique.
3. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction.
Because no regulation has been established by the City to govern the subject property, the
property owner is in limbo with regard to his plans for the property. The property owner has
agreed to accept certain conditions that further the goals of the district, while allowing for the
sale and subdivision of the land.
4. 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 applicant is not permitted to subdivide the property because no minimum standards for lot
size have been established. Other properties in the City could subdivide, provided their
subdivision meets established criteria.
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.
The request would not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity. The variance as
approved will reduce the nonconformity, and preserve the goals established by the
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation
It appears that the standards for variance are satisfied. Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment
accept the following motion:
Move to approve a variance to permit the creation of single lot to be 100 feet wide, versus the
required 300 feet,a variance of 200 feet, subject to the following conditions:
1. All lots created shall be designated as outlots, permitting no principle buildings, unless the
City Council approves a replat of the subject area.
2. Only three lots shall be created, two lots to be ten acres with 300 feet frontage, and one lot
shall be at least 70 acres.
•
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2006\Variance\V 06-06 ER Investments\V 06-06_BA.doc
0
L.CI VI LL! '-II . 1 ZI Ji 7I �I _L V1 Lily uI .I LLI .'5 NI -I XI SI >I ,
I k \ 33 34 /34 35 'I /117
fi_i
I .0" )
LU RIVER I
\ \ 1 Ilill7
I , \ !1 Ii / 1
I I LANDFILL I
I ( li li ?/ S
//
I\ '�►
ii
IlI I •
l \ 225tH AVENUE /i� w
I o
\\\\,
/ I'I' %' s
223-D AVENU 1� I\ ry
;t , II II
/
1 I 7 / h M
1 `SI;o/ 1 CIO„,
II
I
// I ,�I�;
I i %/ I ' II
- i i/
// /////
!
(//
// ,; I
� � ` I 19THi AV N E /. RVPT
it 11.1111!t7,7 ' 7- --'''''' .-4;'--.:--::''7"., '''-- ''-
SITE ��
1 1 ,Ate ,.,..:.•t s I r
/ Ili j .III\ �,
I/ / \\\' I
' " I
II H 11-; I
I _ I I'\ .�
I'
�
'�I I
i
g '_'5TH AVENUE .�,\- � �
III Location Map
City of N
El -�,, 4
Ri Case Number: V 06-06 ELK RIVER INVESTMENTS, LLC
•
I
!
!
• .
1 f
ON Al'Ait'r✓TI'' .fi480.e.=0 .
C 69 T .f4. LA590N g9•fi91L=Ti m
I4 2c-- � r,,�t om R=180.9.85
1 1 �dL,f sow 8=11•13'45•
i ------------ \ °om L=32334 RI
!
.•_� a s m N$ N - r �a q
3- N Q m o 9
II
i` . a oX ~ .."1
m °�
•
N00.0213"W •
221.83 rnsr Luc s r'ro er A.w.SEM/e N00.02'13•W '
i 0 7177.40
' S. 2 N 8 tTLrE 888.48 0
t s Z)
n,
0
CS
ID En
Ri
o_ \ o
I
Q
n
0 y
z 0 m m
m y
N _1_ N
1 g
1 N N
it N
i ^
I N ♦, -1 •
i 04
i 11
I `£ 1 1 ( ..P •
.w sn
w
i .�����8
.I % �. r
J 0
...4:
s
3 A
N
N J o
P.
1 C
8 _C7
r
M� 8 m�
co 0
I
tn En
73 m
ZX
M
! y -12
0�
• o O<
i N \\ 5 00°15'39'E 1319:47 C m
O �-8asr u�c 4r nc It 2/4 a.¢c.M.l ..z,.8.zr Z XI
N ` n
I i Z
1 P
t y
i
I
• Legal Description
The South Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the South 100 feet
of the North 1099.4 feet of that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
lying East of the U.S. Highway No. 169, all in Section 10, Township 33, Range 26,
according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Sherburne
County, Minnesota
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 33
Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on
the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, 212.00 feet South of the
Northeast corner thereof; thence South on said East line a distance of 787.40 feet; thence
West and parallel with the North line said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to
the East right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No.169;thence Northerly along the East line
of said Highway right-of-way to a point that is 212.00 feet South of the North line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;thence East parallel to and 212.00 feet
South of the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the point of
beginning.
• And the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10,
Township 33, Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota.
And the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 33, Range
26, Sherburne County, Minnesota, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof, and situate in Sherburne County, Minnesota.
•
•
Elk River Investments, LLC FILE COPY
15600 36th Avenue North, Suite #204
• ,
Plymouth, MN 55446
Office: (763) 746-9999 Fax: (763) 557-6091
October 30,2006
City of Elk River
Attn: Jeremy Barnhart
13880 Highway 10
Elk River,MN 55330
Re: Aggregate Commercial Plat
Final Plat and Variance Application
Elk River, MN
Dear Mr. Barnhart,
Please accept this letter as part of the application submittal for Final Plat application and
Variance application associated with the combination and re-subdivision of parcels
currently owned by Elk River Investments, LLC. The four existing PID #s are; 75-110-
4101, 75-110-2410, 75-110-1400, 75-110-1401. The attached drawing labeled"Plat
• Sketch" indicates the configuration of the existing parcels in relation to the proposed re-
subdivision.
We are proposing to combine four existing parcels into three parcels, and define the three
lots as outlots only on the fmal plat. No new building sites are proposed as part of this
application, and we understand that the outlots will need to be re-platted as lots and site
plans will need to be approved if building sites are desired in the future.
The configuration of the outlot parcels is such that the minimum parcel size is 10.0 acres.
There is also an existing building on the site that we are proposing be within the
boundaries of Oulot B,the existing building is in good condition and is currently used for
storage. The westerly two existing parcels have frontage on Hwy 169 and access via
217th Avenue or 219th Avenue. The easterly two existing parcels have no public frontage
and access is obtained by crossing the westerly parcels.
The re-subdivision condition is such that all three proposed outlots will have public
frontage on Hwy 169 and access is proposed to remain via 217th Avenue or 219th Avenue.
The access to proposed Outlot C is an existing 100 foot wide parcel (75-110-4101), also
known as private street 217th Avenue,which does not provide the 300 foot public
frontage requirement,therefore a Variance is requested. We anticipate that future
definition of frontage roads in this area, and future development of Outlot C will require
that existing private 217th Avenue be reconstructed and converted to a public street.
Existing private 217th Avenue is also utilized for access by the adjacent property to the
• south(75-110-2405) and we propose that remain as is the current condition.
Elk River Investments
October 30, 2006
Page 2
•
The Variance application requests a written narrative responding to five criteria as
follows:
1) That literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue
hardship.
Answer: Literal enforcement of the 300 foot public frontage requirement would
not allow for the re-subdivision configuration proposed. The existing public
frontage on Hwy 169 does not provide the width necessary to meet the minimum
300 feet of public frontage for each of the three outlots. The access proposed for
Outlot C is an existing parcel of record and it is desired to maintain this access as
part of the larger parcel.
2) That the hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which
are peculiar to the land and the structure involved and which are not
characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same
district.
Answer: Past parcel divisions have resulted in the lack of sufficient public
frontage along Highway 169 to provide for the required 300 feet public frontage
for each of the three oulots. We are unaware of other parcels with this same
• condition.
3) That the special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the
applicant's own action or inaction.
Answer: All parcel divisions that currently exist were created prior to our
involvement with the property.
4) That the literal application of the provision of the Ordinance would deprive
the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under
the terms of the Ordinance.
Answer: The literal application of the 300 foot public frontage requirement
would not allow for the re-subdivision configuration proposed. The proposed
three Outlot subdivision is an improvement of the existing parcel configuration in
that two of the existing parcels have zero public frontage.
•
Elk River Investments
October 30, 2006
•
Page 3
5) That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety,
or welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood wherein the
property is situated and will be in keeping w ith the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance.
Answer: The granting of the variance will not be injurious or adversely affect the
health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood.
Existing private 217th Avenue is utilized for access by the adjacent property to the
south(75-110-2405) and we propose that remain as is the current condition.
Changing from this condition will likely be a hardship on those using this access.
We also anticipate that future definition of frontage roads in this area, and future
development of Outlot C will require that existing private 217th Avenue be
reconstructed and converted to a public street. Since platting of the lot will be as
an outlot,no building or development can occur on Oulot C until the parcel is pre-
platted as a buildable lot and public access be defined as well.
We appreciate your cooperation in processing our request, and look forward to approval
of the final plat as proposed. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions at
111 763-286-1441.
Sincerely,
Elk River Investments, LLC
o
Michael J. Leuer
Chief Manager
Cc: File 00288
•
NOV 1 7 2006
�o404Es°?4
::::::a Department of Transportation
O%
nb Tel: 218/828-5700
o Fax: 218/828-5814
• �y pFTRP�ya 7694 Industrial Park Road Toll Free: 1/800/657-3971
Baxter, MN 56425-8096
November 15, 2006
Mr. Jeremy Barnhart
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River,MN 55330-5600
RE: C.S. 7106 (TH 169)
Variance for Elk River Investments—Aggregate Commercial Plat
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
We received the hearing notice for the above development and have the following comments:
1. As part of the Minnesota State Highway 101/U.S. Highway 169 Corridor Management
• Plan, future access for this area will be an interchange at 221St Street. At that time, access
at 217th and 219th would be closed or connected to a service road. The goal of any re-
subdivision should be to reduce access to U.S. Highway 169.
2. A permit is required to perform work within the right of way, construct any entrances or
change in use of an entrance. Contact Mark Renn in our St. Cloud office at (320) 223-6522
for more information.
Please contact me at (218) 828-5780 if you have any comments or questions regarding our
review of this plat.
Sincerely,
Mary Safgren
Senior Planner
min
cc: Jim Haligren—Mn/DOT Baxter
Mark Renn—Mn/DOT St. Cloud
• Signed in Ms. Safgren's absence
An equal opportunity employer