3.2. BA SR 02-12-2008REQUEST FOR ACTION
To
Item Number
Board of Adjustments
3.2
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Planning Items
February 12, 2007
Sheila Cartney, Senior Planner
Item Description
Reviewed by
Request by Pamela Rorwick for a variance to the minimum
street frontage case# V08-01 Public Hearing
Jererriy Barnhart, Planning Manager
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the variance request to lot frontage, as illustrated
on drawings dated December 20, 2008.
Backaround/Discussion
The applicant has applied for an Administrative Subdivision that will be before the City Council on
February 19, 2008. As part of the subdivision she is requesting a variance to the street frontage for
proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Rockys Manor. The R1a district requires 160 feet of lot frontage, Lot 1 as
proposed has 60 feet and Lot 2 has 433.55 feet. The subject site was recently rezoned to R1a consistent
with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is 10 acres; the R1a allows 2.5 acre lots.
Attachments
Location Map
Applicant's Narrative
Site Plan(s)
Case File: V08-01
Page 2
Rocky's Manor
Pamela Rorwick
General Information
Applicant
Pamela Rorwick
60 Day Rule
The application has been deemed complete as of December 20,
2007. The City must take action by April 20, 2008 — City
extended 60 day notice
Requested Action
Variance to lot frontage
Location and Size
Approximately 10 acres north of 213th and west of Jarvis street.
Location
Existing Use
Land Use Plan Designation
Current Zoning
Subject
Single family
Rural Residential
R1a
Property
home
North
Single family
Rural Residential
R1a
residential
South
Single family
Rural Residential
R1a
residential
East
Single family
Rural Residential
R1 a
residential
West
Single family
Rural Residential
R1a
residential
Overview/Analysis
The subject site has been recently rezoned to R1a allowing 2.5 acre lots with a lot frontage of 160
feet per lot. (The previous zoning required 10 acres and 300 feet of frontage.) The applicant has
applied for an Administrative Subdivision creating two lots with a variance to lot frontage.
As proposed two lots will be created both having 4.81 acres. Proposed Lot 2 has an existing house
and shed that is planned to remain and be sold in the near future. Lot 1 will remain vacant and be
held for future development. Lot 1 as proposed will have a frontage of 60 feet while Lot 2 will have
a frontage of 433 feet. The lot size requirement is met for each lot, Lot 1 does not meet frontage
requirements, and is in a flag shape. If the existing house was not a factor the lots could be split in a
way to allow each lot to have the required 160 feet of lot frontage as currently the lot has 493 feet of
frontage. The existing house is somewhat positioned in the center of the current lot, making it more
difficult to split evenly for two lots, although not impossible.
According to the applicant's narrative Lot 1 should have a 60 foot driveway easement rather than 60
feet of frontage and should be an outlot. The applicant indicates that Lot 1 would be an oudot in
order to preserve for future development. As submitted both lots are platted in a lot and block form
and there is not a driveway easement rather an access and frontage. The applicant should clarify this
at the meeting.
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case riles\Variance\V 08-01 Pamela Rorwick\BOA report.doc
Case File: V08-01 Rocky'S Manor
Page 3 Pamela Rorwick
Applicable Regulations
Variance Criteria
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
Literal enforcement of this ordinance allows this lot to be subdivided; the existing house on the
lot is an obstacle to comply with frontage requirements. Is it possible to draw a line that allows
the 160' of frontage for both lots.
2. The hardshjtk is caused by 4ecial conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the 4roteM and the
structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or aO icable to other lands or structure in the same area
There are no special conditions or circumstances that are peculiar to this property that result in
the smaller lot frontage, with the exception of the existing house, which could be removed in
order to create two conforming lots.
3. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the -petitioner's own action or inaction.
By not removing the existing house, the applicant creates her own hardship in reducing the lot
frontage in order to keep the house.
4. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would derive the Petitioner of rights en�o�by other
-properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
A single family home already exists on the property. Single family uses surround this property,
literal enforcement doe not deprive the petitioner of the rights enjoyed by other properties in
this district, as this property is currently developed as single family.
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adverselyaffect the health, safety or we are of the residents of the citor
the neighborhood where the_Pro4eM is located and will be in kefping pith spirit and intent of the ordinance.
The neighborhood recently changed from 10 acre lots to 2.5 acre lots; therefore smaller lots are
permitted, but the 160 feet of frontage applies, reducing that does not keep the spirit and intent
of the ordinance.
Staff does not believe there is a valid hardship to grant this variance, other than inconvenience. The
applicant has stated that their goal is to sell for future development the Lot 1. There are alternatives
that would allow this transfer, the most common is to plat that property as an oudot. Oudots do
not require street frontage; and do not allow any construction until it is replatted with appropriate
street frontage, lot size, etc.
As the rural areas of Elk River convert to higher density development, these variance questions will
become more and more frequent. It is imperative at this stage to establish a precedent of
maintaining the Zoning Ordinance standards.
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 08-01 Pamela Rorwick\BOA report.doc
Case File: VO8-01
Page 4
Rocky's Manor
Pamela Ronvick
Recommendation
For the reasons stated above, Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments deny the variance
request to reduce the lot frontage to 60 feet for Lot 1, Block 1, Rocky's Manor.
Respectfully Submitted
Sheila Cartney
Senior Planner
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 08-01 Pamela Ronvick\BOA report.doc
I
_1 `�th AVE _� ,� T�
TI
t
_IcTI
I i I
— Tr
SITE
A. VE
I—
O-r�
13100
�;
-
J
I 1 TH
TPA ,TT
w
L< -
��' _ 0 T'�
l � I
Private Drives
Location Map
City of N
El -,
Pdver Case Number: P08-08, V08-01 Pamela Rorwick
To: The Elk River City Council:
I am seeking to be granted a Simple Plat, or Outlot, of my 10-acre property. I would like
it to be split into two 5-acre parcels one having a driveway easement of 60 feet. The front
parcel (south side) will include the house and barn structures. The back 5-acre parcel
(north side), which is open land at the current time, would include the 60-foot wide
driveway to provide access to this 5-acre parcel. The driveway would be located on the
southwest side of the property on 213'' Ave. I am planning on using this back 5-acre
parcel for future investment purposes. I have no current plans for doing any building on
the back 5-acre site at this time. I am looking to sell the house and barn (front 5 —acre
parcel) in the very near future. The surrounding properties of my acreage are currently
being subdivided into smaller parcels as well and may well be up for development. I
would like to have the possibly of joining in on this opportunity, for future development.
Yours truly,
Pamela Rorwick
9719 213t' Ave NW
Elk River.MN 55330
763-241-0051
, ■
I
yb1 I A�� I y I ❑ �� COMM1/OOD!
YK/EMJILQ
OWN
-t-'-•-•-•-•-• �ji K 11
ri •J•� g` � 8 ..?�1 f` n• � '1 9 , im ca'1J fj`�jj
�) ; .� UfJ ;;��� � •� a r; I � � I '•�, �4I 3���
L.......
MnLcu
xl rt yl>AiSy�
oil
CN.&A man
' � p �•i' •¢ P°B vQEB
Ill yl G 'f I
(
qq� x
qq�gv�
° I I
A� ► I
� NOTI'II'6 tJ0.i61
`L6s�//lf G"IIC-:4•I/I Q" 7Hf.£ )/i
F
1 i
rml
8
rml
8