6.1. SR 05-21-2007
REQUEST FOR ACTION
To
Cit Council
Agenda Section
Conununi Develo ment
Item Description
Request by Kevin Anderson for Lot Size Variance,
Case No. V 07-03 - Public Hearing
Meeting Date
Ma 21,2007
Item Number
6.1.
Prepared by
erem Barnhart, AICP
Reviewed by
Scott Clark, Conununity Development
Director
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Consider Appeal of Board of Adjustment decision to deny a variance to pennit a lot split where one of
the lots does not meet the minimum size requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance, section 30-
1006.
Background/Discussion
The Board of Adjustments reviewed the variance request by Kevin Anderson to create a lot .91 acres in
size in a 2.5 acre zoning district. This review, including public hearing, was held on May 8'h, 2007.
Financial Impact
None
Attachments
. Location Map
. Applicants Narrative
. Site Plan
. Board of Adjustments draft minutes
General Information
Applicant:
Requested Action
MN Statute 15.99 status
Location and Size:
Kevin Anderson
Variance from Sec 30-1006 to pennit a lot size of .916
acres where 2.5 is re uired
Action must be taken on this re uest by Ma 26, 2007
Approximately 4.69 acres south ofHwy 10/169, west of
Edison street in the south eastern portion of the
conununity. .
location Existing Use land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning
.
Subject Single Family Res Rural Residential (RR) R-1a
Property
North Single Family Res RR R-1a
South Single Family Res RR R-1a
East Single Family Res RR R-la
West Single Family Res RR R-1a
Overview
The applicant desires to subdivide the property, creating two parcels from the existing 4.69 acre parcel.
The northern parcel would be 39,936 square feet, or .91 acres (199.68 x 200 feet). Access to the northern
lot is proposed to be from Edison street, which provides the minimum street frontage for the property.
There are no structures on the northern parcel. The southern parcel would be 163,038 square feet, or
3.74 acres (approximately 816.5 x 199.68). The existing house on this parcel will be retained, and the
existing access onto the property from 154'" Avenue will be retained. The property is served by on-site
water and sanitation systems. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate the extension of urban
services into the property.
To date, staff has not received any comments for or against the proposed variance.
Analysis
The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 2.5 acres for single family lots within this district. There is
no way to subdivide the property of 4.69 acres into two 2.5 acre parcels without acquiring additional
property.
There are several purposes behind the establishment of a minimum lot size, including density goals, and
in non-services areas, adequate space for wells and septic systems. Although a lot split application has
not been received, one of the requirements for that process is to show where two septic fields could be
located on each property.
A portion of the property is also located within the Mississippi wild and scenic river district, which
requires a minimum of 2.5 acre lots for non-riparian lots. The northern quarter of the property falls
outside this disttict.
Variance Criteria
1. Litera! enforcement ~fthe ordinance wi!! cauj'e undue hardship.
The requirements for lot size are clearly defined, and not open to interpretation. The applicant has
not demonstrated evidence of a hardship.
2. The hardship is caused I;y >pecial conditions and circumstances. which are /Jeeuliar to the /Jro/Jer{y and the structure
involved and which are not characteristic of. or applicable to. other lands or structure in the same area.
The lot is a relatively flat, currently farmed parcel rectangular is shape. There is no uniqueness to the
land warranting a variance from the lot size.
3. The >pecial conditions and "rrumstantes are not a conse,?uence of the ./Jetitioner's own action or inaction.
It does not appear that the applicant created the original 4.69 acre parcel; it does not appear that the
applicant purchased the property with the intent to subdivide.
4. The literal application ~f the /Jromsions ~f this ordinance would deprive the /Jetitioner ohights e,!l~yed ~v other /Jropemes
in the same district under the terms ~f this ordinance.
The property owner is afforded rights enjoyed by other R-1a properties, namely the use of the land
for single family residential use. There is no loss of rights by not allowing subdivision of property not
meeting minimum lot size requirements.
5. The variance will not be i,!iurious to or adverse!y ,,-{fixt the health. s,,-fety or we!fare ~f the residents of the city or the
neighborhood where the _/Jro../Jer{y is located and will be in keeping with >pint and intent ~f the ordinance.
A variance would allow subdivision of lots not meeting minimum standards established by the zoning
ordinance, and with the exception of the on site water and sanitation requirements, its negative
impacts may be negligible, especially from a visual standpoint. The applicant contends that the
character of the neighborhood has been established with the creation of one acre lots or smaller
south and west of the subject property. These lots do range in size from 20,000 to 48,600 square feet,
with the average 29,000 square feet. These lots were platted in 1974, as part of the township, before
initiatives to protect the river and soils, and maintain a maximum density were developed.
Summary
It appears that the standards for variance have not been satisfied. While the applicant could pursue the
minimum variance, (one lot at 2.5 acres and the second lot at 2.19 acres) and this may increase on site
septic and water options, the property is not unique and no hardship has been offered indicating support
for a variance.
Board of Adjustments decision
The Board of Adjustment reviewed the request, and felt that the request was not supported by hardship
or uniqueness and felt that was a request out of convenience versus need. Full draft minutes are enclosed
for the Council's information.
Respectfully Submitted
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Planning Manager
Action
Motion by_
Second by _
Vote
Follow Up
L
I
1
-, (~,\ I~; I~
CA2>'-'--"'--
-==-----====-~
,----
---i--~
I
I
i-'-T~'
1
i i <r~.
1 1 I.;,
ll>.I.'I'/'
~"j
,/'-,
i~'-
"
"
',j
,
.+.
,I
/,,:;,1
. ,
I
I
.T'
,-
1
1
I
I, '_
:1
I il
~m----.J I
-:::-. .1
RENNER t. '.-
>:
;'"
. I
.. ',/WDITfOr.f / _I
, .
il
! r I
,>,1
-'r
--,
'.~' __ I I""
j
~
lie:
----Ill c, -~ T A,V
, .---.. 1
IAPW!I I
'~;'iA~EtL
11.....e'e,. , LJ' -
'I'''''il!' ,
/ii '...:
.'.. ,: .. i
, ;' i
: Iii
, I
=
>
~
~
~. 1
~
-L
-
",I
J_'
rl
1
--!
.1
G~
LJ
lLjl
-I..
Location Map
1r
N
Case Number: V 07-03
KEVIN/PA TRICIA ANDERSON
March 25, 2007
Variance of Zoning Decision for:
Kevin D. Anderson
9927 1 54th Ave. NW
Elk River, MN 55330
1). I would like to have my son's family use 200 x 199.68 feet of my land to build a new
home, since the cost ofland is so expensive nowadays.
2). I have 4.69 acres and I built on the Southwest acre, thus I have the remaining acres
sitting to the Northeast. IfI were to have my son use the 200 x 199.68 feet at the other
end of my land, I would still have as much land, if not more, as most others in my area.
3). I am trying to help out the family.
4). All of the other properties in the area are alII Acre or less lots along the river and
having my son's family build on my land would not interfere with anyone's property. In
addition, the 200 x 199.69 feet ofland already has road access.
5). There are no homes within 250 feet. The homes that are in my neighborhood are on
one acre ofland or less except for the neighbors to the East, which I believe have 2.5
acres and just started a new business on that much land.
LOT SURVEYS CaMP ANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF lilNNESOTA
7601 7Srd Avenue North (763)560-30Q3
Fax No. 580-3522
Minnesota 55428
ClJrdifirnh
'Established in 1962
:Minneapolis,
fStUnrryars
198.68(JiEAS.) 670,9 ED
BSB.II a73.~
661.2 an.2pS'.
Bll&4 ED
.""...
B1l8.1 672.1B
KEYIN ANDERSON
665.7
INVOICE
F.B.NO.
SCALE:
62593
924-43
100'
NO.
1" ~
. Denotes Iron Monument found
o Denotes Wood Hub Set
for excavation only
Denotes Existing Elevation
Denotes Proposed Eleyotion
........- Denotes Surface Drainage
NOTE: Proposed grades are subject
to results of soil tests.
Proposed building information
must be checked with approved
building pion and development or
grading pion beforl!l eXCOVCltion
5 ( 1.. and construction.
7 '. Proposed Top of Block
O"bB.l Proposed Garage Floor
f:(;,"'2... S Propos,=d low,=st Floor
Type of Building
fuce '!3i'QtI1'<,U'
LoolGovT' v) J,..)Ol)vJ1
.000.0
@
NOTE:Garage dropped
2.0 feet
NOTE:Proposed grades set per clients request.
no. ,t.~[ IH.~ 1..1 or th~1 IHIrl. 01 c..............! ~ 3. ~ N. I"<>~.blp X. """I. ~.
Shorb",.". Coun/T. 1/(Innool., 1J'/n6 ""ftf .r M..... atml .. /aI4 .."I In lit. JUIT ncord..J plot '"
. . AI'tW ACRD 31fD ,AlJDfJ1rJH. ...J lp., :-ru. ., IUUt A........ /loF. or /ioU ..Ill hi ...1<1 AVIlIf
The only easements shown ore from plots of record or Informotloruau::r;!R/l .wrJrT1f>>/: Tar!A.... >oIUl U>.. .!Ilt..Ul :nZ.M 1-'. '" IN x-f 1"_64 (HI .r ~.l p..-1.
provid,=d by crrent ..f..:r NrvUt....l qu.art.r ~ t.H }tortMut. qu,ui... r>I ..HI ....!IoIt ~~. l7i... -.,[ '" MJJ UI.o"
We hereby certify that this is 0 true and correct representation of
a survey of the boundaries of the above described lond and the
location of all buildings and visible em;roachments, if any. from or on
said land
Surveyed by us this 25th day of
R"
66a2
I
".,l . "
Po!"ol'# 666.60
[
I
I-
I"
<
[!
"
,-
g
.;
<
.
i
g
I
~
11
6~;o I
6!l3.B
660.2 8113.3
665.6
,"'.
8l!lO.6683.3
ED
B1l7.66
eBB.a
\
I
~
II
Ii
661.D683.7
lag...
6151l.2
^
665.3 .f
".
~.
".. ~ ED
aali. 19I1.11S(lIEAS.) SS5.a2
ED ED ,.
667.05 !lB6..81 6l1lS.1>4
154TH A VENUE N.W.
JECALDt:3C1W'Tt01t
APRIL
Ornn 8y
2002
U"....,It,,'l'
rn._
fb924,4::Unv(l2593.S90
DETAIL
SCALE 1" = 40'
E-
"
"
'"
E-
m
8e5.7 Top Iron
0685.30
I. rfiO, ).1
~:j,14 -,
".~' r~~' ~ .~Ji I~)
(~\ ~. I '91
:j),.o;:; I
'I'~ ~!-,
,~ok~~"
j~ @) ;j
BlIlI.1 136'e.\fr
z
o
en
"
"
. Q taL
S;gnedct~
Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No.21753 or
Gregory R. Prasch. Minn Reg No. 24992
-L
-=-.-7~o"".r\"""
rll r I'nIHl'
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
:
,
,
\
\
\
\\II \
Ij \ IrQ
VI \ 0_
C/ .
~ \ \
l0\
--1-\
r ~\<,<;:--~, -9&", ~~,
I ___~~ ~
. .~ '\
~ \
\
L
-:!:::.
'"
;:.
'"
'"
-
-9
...s
"r -
lfl
--C
(\, <.N ,
~ c_
~
o V1 t;. f' 9:J
0.., 0 ~ ~ \) ~ 0
.....
..~-
~
0,
-'U~ ~ t- \
-cG\r;<;.~
=:'""Q)O_v
\ -, ~
' "::.<
lJ:i~
..) 0
Ji.CJ
v--,
o
Q
-I- -i-
<:; 0
"%+
<;: 0
V'
f\
,
-0 -<,
"'" G
G ~
",\'Q
-'
--<
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, MAY 8,2007
Members Present:
Chair Stevens, Commissioners Austad, Lemke, Scott, Staul and Westgaard.
Commissioner Anderson anived at 6:32 p.rn.
Members Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Sheila Cartney, Planner
Chris Leeseberg, Recording Secretary Debbie Huebner
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 Stevens.
2. Consider May 8. 2007 Board of Adjustments Ag:enda
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE MAY 8,2007 BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
3. Consider March 13. 2007 Board of Adjustments Minutes
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE MARCH 13, 2007, BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
4. Consider Request by Kevin Anderson for Lot Size Variance. Case No. V 07-03. Public
Hearing
Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart reviewed details of the request by Kevin Anderson
including size and location oLthe property. He noted that there are a number of homes in
the immediate area with lots less than 2 \.'2 acre, and that there are no homes within 250 feet
of the proposed building site. Mr. Barnhart stated that he suggested the applicant minimize
the variance by splitting the property more equally, but this was not acceptable to the
applicant. He noted that the southern portion of the property falls within the Wild & Scenic
River District which requires 2.5 acres for non-riparian lots. In order to split the property,
the applicant would be required to show where two septic fields could be located on each
property. Mr. Barnhart reviewed the five criteria for granting a variance. Staff
recommended denial of the variance due to the fact the request does not meet the criteria.
Chair Stevens asked if the platted lots were also in the Rl a zoning district. Mr. Barnhart
stated yes, but that the lots were platted under the township rules before the area was
included in the city limits. He stated that the lots are nonconforming and are allowed to
remam as IS.
Chair Stevens opened the public hearing.
Kevin Anderson, applicant, 9927 154tb Avenue NW - Stated that there are a nwnber of 1-
acre lots in Otsego where he previously lived, and there was not a problem with septic
systems. He stated that the portion of his property in the Wild & Scenic area would remain
as it currently exists. He did not feel there would be any impact to the neighborhood. Mr.
Anderson stated that He did not want to split the property in half because that would drive
the purchase price up too high for his son to buy it.
Jim Engelstad, 15488 Fillmore Street NW - Stated that he felt he was not able to sell his
home because of the condition of the surrounding property values. He stated that there is a
jeep, tires and tar paper in the woods on the lot proposed to be sold by the applicant. He
questioned the value of the house to be built on the lot, if approved.
Mike Anderson, son of the applicant - He stated that the price of the he proposed to
build would be approximately $150,000, not including the value of the lot. Mr. Anderson
stated he did not see how the cost of house had anything to do with his father selling his
land to him.
There being no one to speak further to this issue, Chait Stevens closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification on the property boundaries for the
proposed lot split. Mr. Barnhart provided this information. Mr. Barnhart stated that staff
struggled with the issue, but they felt they had to recommend denial of the variance because
of the failure to meet the five standards.
Chait Stevens stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation for denial. He stated he
may have felt differently if the lot was proposed to be split in half.
Commissioner Lemke agreed that if the applicant were proposing to split the lot into a 2.5-
acre lot and a 2.19 acre lot, the request would be more acceptable, and he was not
comfortable approving a .916 acre-lot. Mr. Barnhart stated that the applicant chose not to
split the property more equally and staff felt it was a variance of convenience and not
hardship, since the property already has a single family home. Commissioner Westgaard
stated that he also struggled with this issue, but the request was a large deviation from the
minimwn lot size. Commissioner Austad concurred. Commissioner Scott stated he felt
approving the variance would set a negative precedent. Commissioner Anderson felt the
variance was unnecessary and was not in favor of approval.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO DENY mE REQUEST BY KEVIN
ANDERSON FORA WT SIZE VARIANCE BASED ON mE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS:
1. mE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT SIZE ARE CLEARLY DEFINED, AND NOT
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. mE APPLICANT HAS NOT
DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE OF A HARDSlllP.
2. mE LOT IS A RELATIVELY FLAT, CURRENTLY FARMED PARCEL
RECTANGULAR IS SHAPE. mERE IS NO UNIQUENESS TO mE LAND
WARRANTING A VARIANCE FROM mE LOT SIZE.
3. IT DOES NOT APPEAR TIIAT THE APPLICANT CREATED THE ORIGINAL
4.69 ACRE PARCEL; IT DOES NOT APPEAR TIIAT THE APPLICANT
PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO SUBDMDE.
4. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS AFFORDED RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER R-
IA PROPERTIES, NAMELY THE USE OF THE LAND FOR SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL USE. THERE IS NO LOSS OF RIGHTS BY NOT ALLOWING
SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY NOT MEETING MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS.
5. A VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW SUBDIVISION OF LOTS NOT MEETING
MINIMUM STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ON SITE WATER AND
SANITATION REQUIREMENTS, ITS NEGATIVE IMPACTS MAY BE
NEGLIGIBLE, ESPECIALLY FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT. THE
APPLICANT CONTENDS TIIAT THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH THE CREATION OF
ONE ACRE LOTS OR SMALLER SOUTH AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY. THESE LOTS DO RANGE IN SIZE FROM 20,000 TO 48,600
SQUARE FEET, WITH THE AVERAGE 29,000 SQUARE FEET. THESE LOTS
WERE PLATTED IN 1974, AS PART OF THE TOWNSHIP, BEFORE
INITIATIVES TO PROTECT THE RIVER AND SOILS, AND MAINTAIN A
MAXIMUM DENSITY WERE DEVELOPED.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
5. Other Business - None
6. Adiournment
There being no funher business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO APPROVE ADJOURN TIIE
MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 7.0.
The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 6:50 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted,
/JJt.u ~
Debbie Huebner
Recording Secretary
~I /I) / II., ) . ~ ~.' .i'IIA '^' -1 f2n~~ ,'-
U L-A.~ ~ ~ (/ { L..-t. j MAY 38 lOG?
Pi cJ= J ~~~ il-< cJ\-- ~ ~
-r () Sr:rl{.~~ /l--t ~ ~4~ Pr~"i-V1r,__
C~~ (1L~ 1t- LJ 07 - 03 (~~
-+ pcit~~ D-~~ clu~ -) ~ J~~-
)Z/~t-~} r~~ p~ 7Z'L~ i.U~ (~
.fl. ~'yk ,if~ !J ,r{/v_ c/ >' .A-v~ trr-1.-h~J.i:rfLJ-~c-
)l-6 G J {jJ:4 t~ ~jv, (j,v-C fed ~~~- -
L~ ~'^- (V-A''J~vki . !7cr. ~ ILJ-'1 ~
. )/ rJ 0 1:<~' j v'-- I !
! _ ,~ r I I J
/v:,v I UA------~ 'I--- "tv '1-~ l--(,... C:L->----~"-- Li~/'- Q
)7(.( &-?:i~~L ~L."", /,~~ dL\.~~t\ Q/L-e,-A.+--~4-- 7hz"
~}- JiJ--J\- fIY-'" 0, cLo~, '""" 61) [l, [iv-(
) j/' g J~,-
)hVI..-ff 1 c::---,d- jJ vJ
/Ii' . - . /I' I) 0 . AAAd"'<\ .
_____ ' 0 /f /-___t.---VvrV'1F - -
I r'J ) - \
."J _ k) Ill.' n "yJ L'J"3 3 (I
[) 1'/ - , "r7 1\/ ! :..J
V,' -1/'-_____---''-
C. r 'I. /) J -:t-- r
l-v~\. ~> ,kr~
___ Ii ~ /~ j 32 3 } 3 (, ~r
I--L./..Q., .:fl