6.1. SR 03-17-2008REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Ci Council 6.1.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Coxnmuni Develo ment March 17, 2008 Chris Leesebex ,Park Planner
Item Description Reviewed by
Request by Thomas Bamford for Variance to the Maximum exem Barnhart, Plannin Mana x
Allowable Accessory Structure Standards in the Rl a Zoning Reviewed by
District, Public Hearing -Case No. V OS-03
Action Requested
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the Variance request, as
illustrated on drawings dated 1-28-2008, because:
1. Criteria #1 & #4 are not met for granting a variance, as the applicant is able to
construct accessory structures without the variance.
Summary
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 6,100 square feet of accessory structures. This would be
2,100 square feet over what is allowed. If the properties in the subject plat had not been granted a lot size
variance, this request may not have even needed a variance, as it could have been a full 10-acre parcel.
Board of Adjustment Discussion
The Plamung Commission denied the request by a 4-2 vote.
The foot commissioners opposing the variance felt they need to look at variances very carefully and not
make their decision based on emotions. They also noted that approving one variance (like the lot size for
the subject property and the two adjacent parcels) can have a "snow ball" effect, which is the case with
this request. If the prior variance had not been granted, one may not be required now.
The two cotnnussioners supporting the variance believed that when the lots were created, they were
considered 10-acre lots that received a variance to be .17-acres smaller and that they should be still
considered that for calculating the accessory structure size. It was also noted that percentage of lot
coverage the applicant is requesting is less than what the ordinance could allow on a 10-acre pazcel.
• 8,000 sq. ft. on 10-acres would be 7.8% lot coverage
• 6,100 sq. ft. on 9.83-acrz r v~ould be 1.4% !at coverage
It was felt the requested size was within the intent of the size requirements.
The Commission did understand that the applicant already has financial commitments to the structure
sizes, as they have been purchased and are on site.
S:\PL~ll9NING IvL9IN\Case Files\Vaziance\V 08-03 Ramfocd\V 0&03_CC.doc
Public Comment
The applicant spoke and stated he disagreed with the staff recommendation. He believes the hazdship is
that he akeady has the size of structures on site. He purchased these based on his initial contact with the
City to find out what size he could construct. He acknowledges he stated he had 10-acres and staff had
then indicated he could have up to 8,000 sq. ft., but he unfortunately did not realize the size change was
at the 10-acre mark and would not have inadvertently rounded-up the number.
Attachments
• Staff Report to Planning Commission dated March 11, 2008
• Memo from Land Rights Technician for Great Rives Energy
Motion by Second by _ Vote
Follow Up
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Vanance\V 0&43 Bamford\V 0&03_CC.doc
~lAR Y 2 2008
GREAT RIVER
ENERGY®
17845 East Highway 10 P.O. Box 800 Elk River, Minnesota 55330-0800 763-441-3121 Fax 763-241-2366
March 10, 2008
Jeremy Barnhart
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing
Thomas Bamford
Case No. V 08-03
Dear Mr. Barnhart:
EB Line
Thank you for providing Great River Energy with notice of the above referenced public
hearing. For your reference I have enclosed a map of Great River Energy's facilities, shown
in red. I have highlighted in pink the approximate location of this property. We do not have
facilities in this area and will not be attending your meeting on March 11, 2008.
We appreciate the opportunity to review your projects. As a reminder Great River Energy
facilities are overhead and will not show up on Gopher One Calls. Please call me if you
have questions or need further information on or facilities.
Sincerely,
GREAT RIVER ENERGY
Michelle MacMillan
Land Rights Technician
Enclosure: 117
MM:ve1R:10 CITY120081EIk River Bamford Public Hearing.doc
Direct Dial (763) 241-2402 E-Mail mmacmillan@grenergy.com FAX (763) 274-6337
www.GreatRiverEnergy.com .-{{~~
A Touchstone Energy Cooperative )E.?.Jf
REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Plannin Cotmnission 3.1
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Plannin Items March 11, 2008 Chris Leesebex , Patk Planner
Item Description Reviewed by
Request by Thomas Bamford fox Variance to the Maximum erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana x
Allowable Accessory Structure Standards in the Rla Zoning Reviewed by
District, Public Hearing -Case No. V 08 03
Action Requested
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the Variance request, as illustrated on
drawings dated 1-28-2008, because:
1. Criteria #1 & #4 are not met for granting a variance, as the applicant is able to
construct accessory structures without the variance.
Background/Discussion
The plat of the subject property received a lot area variance from the City on July 26, 2005. The plat
created three 9.83-acre parcels. There was discussion at that time of creating the plat with two
conforming lots and one lot requiring a variance but ultimately three non-conforming lots were created.
The applicant was under the impression that the property was 10-acres in size when he purchased it. The
allowed sizes fox accessory structures in the AI zoning district is as follows:
• 5-10 acres allows 4,000 square feet
• 10-20 acres allows 8,000 square feet
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 6,000 square feet of accessory structures.
Attachments
Location Map
Applicant's Narrative
Site Plan(s)
Case F'ile~ V 0&03
Page 2
General Information
Thomas Bamford
Applicant Thomas Bamford
60 Day Rule The application has been deemed complete as of February 7,
2008. 'The Ci must take action b March 27, 2008
Requested Action Accessory Structure Size Variance
Size The subject property is 9.83-acres. A .17-acre variance was
granted.
Location Existing Use Land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning
Su6jeet
Property Residential Rural Residential Al
North Residential Rural Residential Al
South Residential Rural Residential Al
East Residential Rural Residential Al
West Residential Rural Residential Al
Overview
The applicant would like to build two accessory structures. One would be 36'x72' and the other
36'x46' fox a total of 4,248 square feet. There is an existing attached garage which is approximately
1,800-square feet in size.
The total square footage would be approximately 6,048 square feet; roughly 2,000 square feet more
than allowed yet it would be roughly 2,000 square feet less than allowed if the lot size was 10-acres.
Had the parcels been plated with 2 conforming parcels and 1non-conforming parcel, this request
may not have been needed, but there is know way of knowing which lot would have been the non-
conforming lot. It is possible that the adjacent 9.83-acre parcels could apply for the same type of
variance.
Variance Criteria
7. L.a'teral enforcement of the ordinance mill cause undue hardrh~.
The literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship, as the applicant can build accessory
structures.
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Piles\Variance\V O&-03 Bamfonl\V 08-03_BA.doc
Case Pile: V 08-03 Thomas Baxrdoxd
Page 3
2. The hardship is caused baps ecial conditions and circumstances. which are~eculiar to the ro ~ and the
strracture involved and which are not characteristic o~ or applicable to. other lands or structure in the same area.
The special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the property ate the lot sizes that were
created though the previous variance process. The ordinance establishes a well defined system
of size to lot ratios.
3. The special conditions and circumstances are not a conre~uence of the petitioner's own action or inaction.
The conditions of the property are a result of the City approving a lot size valiance, upon the
request by the original owner/developer just the aggregate size.
4. The literal application ofthe ptnvisions o~this orda'nanc~ would deprive th~etitioner ofrights enioved other
broberties in the came district under the terror of this ordinance.
The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not deprive the petitioner of
rights enjoyed by other properties as the applicant can build accessory structures.
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversel~a~ect the health. safety or welfare of the residents o~the city or
the neighborhood where the~erty is located and will be in kee inP with spirit and intent o~the ordinance.
The variance would not be injurious to ox adversely affect the health, safety ox welfare of the
residents of the city.
Q1CtIUn Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
S:APLANNING MAiN\Cave FilesVVaianceAV 08-D3 BamfordVV OB-03~A.doc
~
'
~ ~;.,
~~
W
H
Z
C
r
w
~
O
-~ ~-
0
W
,~
C~
O
0
a
Z
y
~~ ' N
~~
~;
'. jl T fXl
~ - ~
T _Z 1 =
V `
___s
~ _-
~ s, ~o~ --
__- _~
~~~- -{
~~
N
~O
ri ~
I /
~~/~~KTiJN
-r~;~_~
'A~~~,
IIi~~ ~~~ ~~ ~c~~~~ r,-
~ r', 6
~~, '~ 'Pl- `F` IJ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~~'
T~~~~
\~__-
~,
,,
~ ~_U~ ;
v
r _ ~ ~
j
~- --_, ~I--~ - -
i es anance - am or oca ion map. wg, o or aser e
We purchased what we thought was a ten acre lot with the intention of building a house, a
horse barn and a pole barn for storage and a work shop for personal use. I was informed
by the city that I could build these two barns. When I applied for the building permit for
the two pole barns I was told that the lot is only 9.83 acres and the barns were too big for
the lot. The developer had been approved for a variance to make the three lots smaller
than 10 acres. The zoning in this azea requires a 10 acre minimum lot size. We have
already purchased the barns and are building the house. I am asking that since there is a
10 acre minimum and a variance has already been granted then the lot should be treated
as 10 acres and then the barns would meet the zoning requirements. I only want to use the
__ _ __ __
proposed buildings for personal use only. If we had known that we would not be able to
build these barns we would have looked for a lot that would allow us to build the barns.
The application states that five criteria need to be met for a variance to be approved
and I believe they were met as follows,
1- The hazdship is that we aze spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a
property that will not be what we had planned.
2- This is caused by the lot being smaller than the minimum requirement for the area
by .17 tenths of an acre but a variance was approved for the lot size and the lot
should be treated as the minimum size of 10 acres
3- This is not caused by an action on my part
4- By not having a lot the size of the m;n;mum we are not able to build our barns as
others in the zoning would be able to because the minimum lot size would be
large enough to build the barns
5- The variance will not harm anyone and will in fact help by having my personal
property in a barn instead of in the yard
All I am asking is that the lot be treated as a ten acre lot for the purpose of building
two pole barns. One is 36'x 72' and the horse barn is 36' x 46' .
??~tTE 6?I~CFIVED
Lot 2, Block 1, A & R ADDITION
ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA
SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION
Notes :
1. Buidirl9 dImM41M31 eWwO aR 10! ® Denol¢ set sphe
horizontal & vertical pldcemenl of slmdure o Denote: n Iron monument
f
oral. See architectural Ions frc buddin
Y P 9
9D.a Denotes
ound ko m omen[
Denotes costing levatlon
e
k foundation dimMSiais (930.0) Denotes proposed
lewtlon
2 No ~ecific sills invstgalian has been TC roinpge
pof a a
De ol
o
~o
canpleted on this lot ay Jomes R. H-I, Inc b
e
s
p
ur
The suilohdi(y of soils b support the speti8c
hoax prapnsed is not Ue responsibility of pen°tm ospnmt surrace
Jomes R. Hill, Inc, ar H,e nwve}gr.
3. No specih< title searcll trc existence w non- ~ penotes gravel surfoce
ex stentt pf lewrded a! ¢n re[vtletl eaSMltllts
- _. ___-_---hosbeea rnndudW by-thesmae}gr tt g part-. -.-_ yrJ _p otes overbeaA utility line
- - -
of the survey Only easements par Ue recorded ~ D t s easement to ba vacted
Plat are shoran
4. Propaxd demotions ore bozM m drainage
/
and existing elevations. Nr sot borings were prodded
Ip deteRllln¢ ¢%lClln[f mat'~eetl Sai8 b exlstiw9
water table.
I
I ~nT
yr
I
_ _ 1D28.91 584°4p'00'E
-___ ~.zs
I ' y / ~ ~ -
1 rylnl
tN \
It
A\
\8~
i
nor z
1 ,c
°,Y1 ~
Y 'I \ .+L .
,' _ Ir
_~_~_.~
__. _. _. ____...._ ~ )°m
\ fn[y` 9 ~fi•
%i \ i
ray
\\ 1r
Ire fl ~
.a..%
~~~gl ;BEN
mll i~ 9K.%X
C II g
I '~
e Its
l~
I
a ~~s%a.r
~,\
y^'~~
'~ :<-u
.9«.
095.51 589°44'42°W /
;/
evl ..
9r99
n w sx•nao's I
r-T-----
i~~'
/ 1
I lax Plwr= -f., /
/ fA
e/
/ i ,~~
'~ /
' Bt]5 J i~/~~
X165 as saNnCO awl sag ,(o
t /
r<
~C Z ~*
3- X7Z
3 re
~~ g~/
~q~
.I ° ~~
4\\.J 491ae ~rJ~ Eq
~~4
Y/ I~~V 9az i q ry Y~Uw
/ gam' I ^ paxwvc Awo Unurr_, ~<p J Y
~`olm ~e V~ ,'~~i-EA2Mdi PW PIAi ~, ~
/~ f 90ta15g la¢ 94]3 t NiRT~~9105 >~ h ~
1 9) 8IT_ V.y ly~na.OxC
Ap~ ~ ~esrva w I b~µrpm ~~ " gar<~4;C
9155%1 / ¢xEV Ba69]8 t%l Ppj C[AY{ ~Y1Oa~ / ~
n 9iryrv '~~p {` ~``
° 59¢Y RW 9s]B
'I I °I,%'~.._°ax]ar ecmxwxa
I I I.y 3
I I I~ 8
I I I8
I
I j I° ,'i~
1!~ ~_~ li - --- ~rv_ - - .~ ~-moos-- - - ~"'~ _
uxm ar car x seas r, sa a `o'or~
m IIXIN.
'/
C /
A drainage and utiliTy eesemwt to be vacated aver, ands and awss thm part of W[ 3,
Block 1, A &. R ADDITION, according to the recorded plaz thereof, Sherburne Cowry,
Mirmesora, described az follows:
Comunrneing at the swtheast comer ofsaid Int 2, thence South 89 de&cee 44
minutes 42 sewnds West, assumed bearing along the souN line ofseid Lot 2, a
distance of 200.00 feet thence North OD degrees t 5 minutes IS seconds Wert a
distance of ]1.00 to the point of hegieming of the eesemeed m be varared; thenw
continuing North W degees l5 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 5o.D0 feet;
thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 42 seumds Eazt a distance of ]11.00 feel;
ihrnce South 00 degrees IS minutes 18 sxonds Eazt a distance of 50 00 feet
thence South 89 degees 44 minutes 42 seconds Wet a distance of'/D.00 feet [o
the point ofbeginrdng
thereby certdfy that this survey, plan or report was prepared by m
or undee my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land e
Surveyor under the lam of the State of Minnesota.
Higned 5 day of Se~ m/WVZ'lr W' For James R Hill, Inc.
p ,
Harold C. Peicrson, land Surveyor, Mimsesota license No. 12294
so
'~ SCALE IN fEFT
/~ o ao m lzo
s0 V ORIENTATIONOF TH[S BEARING SYSTEM
as L4 HASED ON THE 500TH [JNE OF ]AT 2,
/ BI
D
CI(
1. A& R AD
D
ITION TO
HA
VE AN
(rY
~
~
j
5y, ~p
~
'[
~
v
N
~ :S.
r ..~
=_ _~ ~ yy
~d
~ ~Y~
y ~ YgYg
w 7~
Z ~
C7 u
Z ge. ~
y~pyyd?
N 5
w
~a ~
z
Q
F
ry~ O
W F-1 b i
o U ~'
~wW w~~rr3
~ G ~ F
6 ~ ~ p
~q~0.1i
~~~ a<
U U F°I `:
/~O ~ w
wn"I
a° ~