6.2. SR 02-17-2009REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Ci Council 6.2.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Communi Develo ment Februa 17, 2009 Chris Leeseber ,Park Planner-Planner
Item Description Reviewed by
Request by Fred McCoy (McCoy's Pub) for Variance from the erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er
Shoreland Setback Regulations, and the Impervious Surface Reviewed by
Regulations, Case No. V 09-01-Public Hearing
Action Requested
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the two variance requests, as illustrated on drawings dated
2/5/09, with the following reasons:
1. The application does not meet variance criteria 1-4 set forth in Section 30-635
2. The entire proposed 30 foot addition is within the DNR defined bluff line setback
3. The proposed addition and existing building will exceed the allowed impervious surface
by approximately 45%.
Should the City Council approve the two variance requests, as illustrated on drawings dated 2/5/09, staff
would recommend the following conditions:
1. City engineer shall approve, prior to construction, a bluff re-stabilization plan and
stormwater retention plan.
2. Use approved materials consistent with the downtown design guideline.
3. Subject to DNR review and approval.
4. Any item or condition found that indicates the site is likely to yield information
important to prehistory or history shall be reported to the city immediately. Further, the
city reserves the right to stop work authorized in its approval until the site is
appropriately investigated and work is authorized to continue by the city.
5. Building addition shall not to exceed 30 feet or no further than a line that extends from
the bluffs building and the cinema main building.
Board of Adjustments Discussion
Each of the commissioners expressed their views on the variance. The Board of Adjustments agreed
with staffls recommendation of denial with a 4-2 vote.
Public Comment
No one spoke at the public hearing.
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Varianee\V 09-O1 Fred McCoy\V 09-01_CC.doc
Attachments
• Staff Report to Board of Adjustments dated February 10, 2009
• Variance Criteria
• Resolutions
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 09-01 Fxed McCoy\V 09-01_CC.doc
Variance Criteria
7. Literal enforcement o~the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
Literal enforcement will not cause undue hardship as the applicant purchased and operates a
functioning business in the existing building on the property.
2. The hardsh~ is caused by sbecial conditions and circumstances which are beculiar to the~ro~erty and the
structure involved and which are not characteristic of or ai~t~licable to other lands or structure in the same area.
There are no special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the property. Although
the bluff setback, which is shown by the Minnesota Department of Natural Recourses (DNR)
definition, varies depending on topography, it does affect all properties in the area. If two of the
three adjoining buildings were to come in for a building addition, similar to what is being
proposed; those buildings would have the same bluff line setback and impervious surface issues
which would require a variance.
3. The sbecial conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction.
The DNR regulations and City ordinances axe not a consequence of the petition's actions but
there are no special conditions and circumstances to the property. The regulations and
ordinances affect all the properties in the immediate area.
4. The literal at~blication of th~rovisions of this ordinance would derive the betitioner of rights en~oyed by other
~ro~erties in the same district under the terms o~this ordinance.
The petitioner would not be deprived any rights, as they purchased and operate a functioning
business in the existing building on the property, as do other properties in the same district.
Neighboring businesses would have the same ordinances to follow as the subject property and
would be required to obtain setback and impervious surface variances.
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversel~a, fect the health sae or we~are of the residents of the city or
the neighborhood where th~ro~ert~ is located and will be in kee~iin~ vavith sbirit and intent of the ordinance.
The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the
residents of the city.
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 09-01 Fxed McCoy\V 09-01_CC.doc
~lLE COPY
REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Plannin Commission 4
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Plannin Items Februa 10, 2009 Chris Leeseber ,Park Planner-Planner
-Item Description Reviewed by
Request by Fred McCoy (McCoy's Pub) £or Variance from the erem Barnhart, Pla.nnin Mara er
Shoreland Setback Regulations, and the Impervious Surface Reviewed by
Regulations, Case No. V 09-01
Action Requested
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the two variance requests, as illustrated on
drawings dated 2/5/09, with the following reasons:
1. The application does not meet any of the variance criteria set forth in Section 30-635
2. The entire proposed 30 foot addition is within the DNR defined bluff line setback
3. The proposed addition and existing building will exceed the allowed impervious surface:
by approximately 45%.
Should the Board of Adjustments approve the two variance requests, as illustrated on drawings dated
2/5/09, staff would recommend the following conditions:
1. City engineer shall approve, prior to construction, a bluff re-stabilization plan and
stormwater retention plan.
2. Use approved materials consistent with the downtown design guideline.
3. Subject to DNR review and. approval.
4. Any item or condition found that indicates the site is likely to yield information
important to prehistory or history shall be reported to the city immediately. Further, the
city reserves the right to stop work authorized in its approval until the site is
appropriately investigated and work is authorized to continue by the city.
5. Building addition shall not to exceed 30 feet or no further than a line that extends from
the bluffs building and the cinema main building.
Background/Discussion
The primary concern with the application. is its inconsistency with the environmental regulations. In 1991
the city adopted the Shore Land Ordinance and Impervious Surface regulations that the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) established. These regulations, in part, pertain to bluff line setbacks and how
much of the property can be covered with impervious surfaces.
In an effort to accommodate existing structures, the DNR, in 1999, amended the Wild and Scenic line to
accommodate all the existing structures in downtown.
Case File: V 09-O1 Variance
p~ ~ Fred McCoy
Attachments
• Location Map
• Memo from Environmental Administrator dated February 4, 2009
• Memo from Fire Chief dated January 14,.2009
• Letter from Bogart, Pederson and Associates, Land Surveyors, dated January 23, 2009
• Site Plan
• Architectural Drawings
General Information
Applicant Fred McCoy
Requested Action Conditional Use Permit fox Building Addition
Location and Size Approximately .11 acres in downtown Elk River.
Location Existing Use Land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning
Subject
Property Commercial Old Town Downtown District
North Mixed Use Old Town Downtown District
South River Old Town Downtown District
East Commercial Old Town Downtown District
West Commercial Old Town Downtown District
Overview
On January 20, 2009 the applicant was granted a Conditional Use Pexrnit to construct an addition to
his restaurant. Several conditions were placed on that approval. Four of the conditions are as
follows:
7. A variance from the required setback from the blu~in a shoreland done under section 30-2022 of the city
code is approved.
2. A variance from the maximum allowed impervious surface in a shoreland done under section 30-2025 of the
city code is approved.
3. Subject to DNA review and approval.
4. Not to exceed 30 feet or no further than a line that extends from the bluffs building and the cinema main
building.
The applicant is asking for a variance to the bluff line set backs as well as a variance to the allowed
amount of impervious surface.
Staff is reviewing this application with the DNR defined bluff line. The entire proposed 30 foot
addition is within the DNR defined bluff line setback. In addition, approximately 30 feet of the
existing building is within the DNR defined bluff line setback.
S:\I'LANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 09-01 Fred McCoy\V 09-01_BA.doc
Case File: V 09-01
Page 3
Vaziance
Fred McCoy
The lot area is approximately 5,600 square feet and the existing building with proposed addition will
be approximately 4,000 square feet. The ordinance states that impervious surface coverage shall not
exceed 25 percent of the lot area. The existing structure plus the addition would cover
approximately 70 percent of the lot.
ARplicable Regulations
Variance Criteria
7. Literal enforcement o~the ordinance will cause undue hardsh~.
Literal enforcement will not cause undue hardship as the applicant has a functioning business in
the existing building on the property.
2. The hardship is caused b~sbecial conditions and circumstances which are~eculiar to the~ro~erty and the
structure involved and avhich are not characteristic o or a~licable to other lands or structure in the same area.
There are no special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the property. Although
the bluff setback varies depending on topography, it does affect all properties in the area.
3. The .r~ecial conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the~etitioner's ozvn action or inaction.
There are no special conditions and circumstances to the property.
4. The literal a~~lication o~the 1~rovisions o{this ordinance avould derive the~etitioner oughts en~oyed by other
~rofierties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
The petitioner would not be deprived any rights, as they have a functioning business in the
existing building on the property, as do other properties in the same district
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adverse a~fect the health salty or avel are o{the residents o the city or
the neighborhood where th~ro~erty is located and will be in keeling avith .r~irit and intent of the ordinance.
The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the
residents of the city.
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 09-01 Fred McCoy\V 09-01_BA.doc
I WH LZZO~ii 6002/6/i '6nnp deW uoile~o~\lo~~W pa~~ ZO-60 n\a~ueue~\sa~ij ase~\~NINNtIId\=S
s. ~ _ -_ _-
~,~ ~ ~ ~
r ~ •u~.,
:... , .;
i.' . , ~ ~.
:~.
,;
..,.Y .;.,.....
- - _,. _ -
__...
~•' ~,''.
.. ~ ~• '.
_':
~.-~:......... .....c:.
..._. :...: .. ,: .:max.: ..,_ .::,~':
.a ~ ,. .~. `~ -
4.-
..tee.., _ _ _
~~> -,
.;:x,; i.
~:.T'~scS-, _. ._.._. I. via='' - ~ ~ ::'~~~<:' •. ;J,'.~" f~'i'~''~-
~~..:._ „•.c... .:_:....~ ~. }~
:,
j •
9 ~ v.-., i.~ _ ~~~ 'ter.' _ -~
_..
~ ~ - t.
;~
~. : .
1
_:' _
.~~ ~
. ~'
:a •= 1"
.--. ~
r
::~ ~ __
.~
~ ~' . ~ ~ A •
=` _ _ -
~ r ,~ ~~'
j ~'
I ~ ~"~~
~ y r~ xr
E ~ iae,;r
'; ~ ~~
".'~1, - -
•_. ~ ~.
-.
i... ,.
/ tr _
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ r ~~~~
_-=~
,.._ . , .
... ,
~''~ - _ ~_
_ ,~<
~--. max. .wr. ~.'._ -K~. - ~ ~ itiw`sa. ~:'" n~:~5a ^`® r.`-.:"~-~i:
;.
.~, ..
~.,
,.„... ~,
~,
>: w •~
i
fiver
MEM®RANDUM
TO: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager
FR®M: Rebecca 1-laug, Environmental Adminiistrator
DATE: February 4, 2009
SUBJECT:. 'V 09-OJ -Fred McCoy -McCoy's Pub
V - 09-01 -Fred McCoy -This application does not meet the Shoreland Ordinance.
The Environmental Division does not support this application due to the amount of
impact to the bluff. The bluff setback of 30' has been set due to the instability of the
bluff. Bluffs are inherently much steeper and sensitive to impact than a hill or steep
slope. Also, with any river, there is a chance for meandering and thus making this bluff
even more susceptible to impact. It appears after inspections of the site that this area is
on an outside curve of the river which creates more chance for meandering. Hence, the
bluff setback protects the river by reducing the chance for erosion and bank sloughing.
This application also .does not meet the impervious surface coverage standard in Section
30-2025. Stormwater management (2) Specific Standards a. The ordinance states that
impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. The
existing structure plus the addition would cover approximately 70 percent of the lot.
The purpose for this section is to reduce the amount of runoff from a site prior to
discharging in to the storm sewer system or directly into the river. Water runoff from
impervious surface typically contains pollutants and is heated which causes water quality
issues. Part of the City's NPDES Permit is to require more infiltration and reduce the
amount of impervious surface throughout the City.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you for the opportunity to review
the applications.
~v~r
TO:
FROM:
®ATE:
SUBJECT:
Jeremy Barnhart,
MEMORANDUM
Planning Manager
I~ruce A. Vd/est, Fire Chief
January 14, 2009
Site Plan l~evie~e Meeting ®f Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The site plan review committee met on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 and I would like to
make the following comments:
1. Conditional Use Permit Case No CU 09-04 Request by Waste Mana ement
for Elk River Landfill Expansion
The Fire Department has no concerns.
2. Final Plat, Case No. P 09-01-Elk Ridge Center Fifth Addition, Request by
7040 Lakeland Partners
The Fire Department has no concerns.
3. Coa~ditaonal Use Permit,_Case No. CU 09-05, Request by 7040 Lakeland
x~artners for Retail Fuildin~~to be added onto existing Aldi situ
The location of the proposed hydrant on the plan as presented to Public Works
Director Terry Maurer meets the approval of the Fire Department. No exterior fire
suppression indicating valves shall be allowed at the Elk Ridge Center 5`h addition. If
there are any other questions the applicant shall contact Fire Marshal Cliff _~nderson
at 763-635-1110.
4. Conditional Use Permit, Case No CU 09-06 Request by Morrell Properties
The Fire Depart7rient has no concerns.
Variance. Case No. V 09-01, Request by Fred McCov
The Fire Department has no concerns.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to call me at the Elk River Fire
Department at 763.635.1105.
art, Peers®n
& Associates, inc.
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
MAPPING
Chris Leesberg, City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
cc:McCoy`s Place
e N ~ 6 ~a~9
To Whom it May Concern,
I was requested,. by Fred McCoy, to submit any information I had to the
City of Elk River, regarding the Top of Bluff information that I had and
how I established this on the Bluff Exhibit for Fred McCoy. On 3/26/08 I
received a copy of the Elk River Code showing the description of a Bluff.
A Bluff has the following characteristics: (an area with an average slope
of less that 18% over-a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be
i~CiilSiucrcu part Uf d i.il'.llfl ) -
1-located in shore land area
2-slope rises at least 25 feet above OHW
3-grade of slope from .toe of bluff to a point 25 feet or more above
OHW averages 300 or greater
4-slope shall drain towards to water body
The Top of a Bluff definition (which the setback is measured from) is the
higher point of a 50 foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18%.
I contacted Roger Stradal with the MnDNR on how the Mn
Bluff and a Top of Bluff. Roger agreed with the above
discussed using cross-sections of the area between the
back of the building and creating a triangle showing a
length) and at least an 18o slope,. which would give us
(change in elevation over 50 feet).
DNR would define a
definitions.. We
waters edge and the
50 length (segment
a height. of 9 feet
I applied the 50 foot length X 18o slope triangle to Cross-Sections B & C.
Since the slope was much higher between the Visual Top of Bluff and the
area down to the water the triangle that pulled the 50 foot segment with a
greater than 18% slope into the `flatter' area that is between the Visual
Top of Bluff and the back of the buildings. There does not appear to be a
Top of Bluff at the location established by using the triangle. I feel
that since there is not a good `sample area` between the Visual Top of
Bluff and the back of the buildings to get more than one 50 foot segment,
that we should rely on the Visual Top of Bluff to establish our setback.
I did show the Top of Bluff and its setbacks after numerous phone calls
with people from the City of Elk River and the MnDNR at the Visual Top of
Bluff. I did not find a definition of Top of Bluff that applied directly
to this instance of having a sample area of less than 50 feet. The
`flatter' area between the Visual Top of Bluff and the back of the
buildings is approximately 44 and 50 feet (along Cross-Sections B a C).
The slope of this `flatter` area is less that 18 % and it is not for a
distance of 50 feet or more, but I still considered this to not be part of
the bluff, due to its slope.
Respectfully,
C~'~-Qw ~1.~.,a~,. 1~ZJ V9
Shannon Bollman, and Surveyor
Bogart, Pederson and Associates
Main Office: decker Phone: 763(262-8822
13076 First Street Toll free: 888/210301
Maple Lake
311 Division St. W. Box 249
Phone: 320!963-6900
Waite Park Phone: 320/252-0409
2077 Frontage Road N. Ste. 12 Toll free: 888/251-0409
~iuff Exhibit ~
for
. Fred McCoy
sulLO1NG• SETBACKS City of Elk River, Sherburne County, Minnesota
FROM TOP OF BLUFF 30 FT
MlsslSSlPPI WfLO AND
SCENIC RIVER ARTICLE 1-GENERAL
DISTRICT FROM TOP OF BLUFF-lhe higher poertt of a
THE OHW 50 FT 50-foot segmant with on overage
' slope exceeding f8~
ZONING
oowNTOwN ofsrR~cr PROPOSED ADDITION i Inch = 20 Feet
30x30 F00T
DATUM
_ NCVD 1929 '
o ( ~ - - -a25' ~ _ ' 7
m ~ Eik,,~\
v v `_3p,_~ ' ~~
a
\~ lChiropeactic McCoy's "-gems, Inc. ~~ °~
~, h~ Office ~ /_ -
_ 1 1 Finished /i> ~~
9oor L4 ~~
L/ \ en fry /v.-. ~ __ _
\ E! - 882.9.
I / // ~ I _ ~
Cinema \ .~ ~~
Professional
Building \ 1 C _ ~ ~_
EXTEN90N CCCCQQQQF ~ _ -
BACK CINE ~F p ~ v.,
NEIGNBORfN -- Cq
BUfLO/NG - ~ ~ ~ axl ~- , - ~
~ C /1O
! ~~ ~Qqw \ 30\ \~ F1
-~ _ 1 ~ _
/ / / \ c° c~ 01 ~
,~ ~`su
I _.. se. ~ ~ -F_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ ` ~-'"._ VfSUAL TOP
~_ \ ~,~ ~---' OF BLUFF
OF BLUFF , 6-y ~~ ~~ ~ EXTENSION OF
__ / m %~z~ ~~'` ~. ~~---' ~' - BACK LINE OF
865.21 \..~- ~ ~/ - - -I- - - ._~ ,`_-^~ "~L
Map No. 2714lC0390 E~\J -~ ~ ~- ~~~ ~~ ~• ~ ~=~ ~ ~- ~~
OHw ELEV=860.5- --~~r- -'' ~~ ~~` ~ _~ r~` ~`
`~ -~.~ `~~ OHW ELEV=860.5
~ edge of ~\,
/~.~ --~_
~~ \ edge of water os _ - _'
-____~ ~R_locloted 4/7/08RI,/FR
!Yf'V~'~~~/ ( / -852.2! \I Y L./ 1
FIELD DATE:
BK/PG: J ~ BOGART, PEDEfiSON
DRAWN BY;
CHECKED BY: n~-# ~cN AS$Y®CIATES, IPdC.
REVISIONS: CIVIL ENGINEERING
10 27/08 Edit elevations. add MAPPING
datum info, show t0 Of 130]6 nR$T STREET, fiECKER. A1N 5530 8-93 2 2
P TEL: 763-262-6822 FPX; 763-262-0844
bluff
O1 07 09 edits to linetyoes
02 O5 09 show 30ft building DRAWING FILE: FILE N0.
MCCOYS PLACE REV1 08-0064.00
•v
~d
~
~
.
- ~8n ss~s-9sa (s9q xv~ ss~z-9s8 (~9~ •~rd ~~~
e6sss pl v NdWa~vz 3~o JavaGv3~~ 6zz9z
-
~ ~ ~~N-~
~~~ ~~~~~
o
_ - ~~~1~~~ ~~~a
~in~ a~l~~~ ~~g~ ,Zxaa_,a~~x h
W
~
~
0
a
w
~ 0
~
A m
J
Q ~ z
~ Z m
3 ?
N
wmu
Z O
W X ~0
X m ~
0 ~
Z W W z
U ~-
_
i m u -
~°
awx Q d.
Q ~
~~ ~rcR ~ ~
® O Q N
E ~'
m W
~ L ,.
i
~ ~
a
Q~d
~
~
r m~
oar
¢~w
~
~
~o~
ozm N o
azu~
_
~~~
~ z
= ~~
~`
~
i rc
~a r
~
w .rc
wo
~ O ;
----- - - -
z
Z ~ ----------=-
__ ~_ ----------- ----------
_ _____ ----------------------
~~
Q o ~ ,,
O z z ~ J $ .
^
z ~
~ O
~ 1 3
Z2 n
WO
FZ
_ 0
J
Q F'
oo L
rc W m
ao
~
Q 4 0 ~z g
~
LL ~j ~
~ i srnvid ~a~nvdc „ z
~ N
~ ~
~
} N
w z 4
0
~ a
a
Q W
p a
i 0
i N
W
z
w
~O
i
1
3
Z D
pm
It
Y3~1
s ~ ~ ~'
p
O
~ K OK
~
Q
mm~
XO~ 0
i ®
ENV d la v ,m W
20 U~
Zp mi
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
} ~
~~w
o
~ j V'
u
'~ oom,~=i
a"
i
~
~ w ~
~
o ~m
o..~
oo ~
~ 3a
o $p z~Ya@=°
m i ~ -
wo¢rc maw
! ,
~
~
~ ~ '
X
~
W
~~
~..
~o
w-
~~~w
9Wa3
mrc~'~
~~o~
o~:a
Qai~
U
.A4,F : ~~o- c 'a'a
~
„~~ ~
~.~~~~. ~~I1 SS~S-9se Cs9LJ •XV~ ss~z~s8 ~~9~1 '~vo/7e
a6sss/~v NdGvz 3~ Javo6^r~a-~ 6zz9z ~ ~n
s~~l~~~ ~~ia~in~ a~li~~
~ ~ ~~~.~,
~~g,
.~~
:18 ~o~
~Hea~o~,N
~8~~ 4
o
Q
1 Z
~
a
3 ~
Z ~ 7
z 0
m 0
W LL
z w
J
4 v
F ~
Q
O z
0 0
a
nZ~
~o~
~`~z
Q~O
~a0
~ ~
a
a~0
_H
}
cA
~ O
2
~Nwado oauvai ~NUS~xi ie of
a000 1xu713 T3319 I~1
'~ a
Y y
U U
U
m
0
w w
a o.
w ~ ~ w
F
~ ~
~
~
~~ ~ ~p
Y u
rc p _~
e
4
~rc
m a
L~ V LU
•°u W ~°u
Z ~
4 0
_o Y y ~
0
m m
a a
m
m
~ U
U
°.J.113L13a(ID3a 9QO7
133W O11M%~H ,9E NIW s'pya
~~ ~~
,o-ae
`~
N
~, a--
'~
WZ
~~oa
_>~~
9~~u°
mrc~w
~i8p
~~p~
.~;5~
8a,~
~' 3
~ g
~
~ _ _ ~~n ssss~s8 (~9L) xv~ ss~G~sB (~9q ~~a(rd ~gn
~jv~oJ~DW3~~ 6zz9z y~ ~ ~~.~~, .a£ ~~~~~ o
!
v Nt~^u~t4N2
e6~55 p
o-~gt ~zHVa~o~ix
*
'
~ I
. woad ua rorroua Q
S~~li~l~~ ~~~~~~~~ Q~l~~~ ~
\~~
V
U
U
~.
i.U
0
0
~`^`
i~
H
Q
z
~nz~pW
Z ] W p
a
QQ
p
rt7
Z d-r Z p
VU'~1W
S
m=m_UZ
~ 1 67 IL
N I- W
O O
O ~ m ~ ~
~~O~U
Vrc ~ OZ~'a
~ 6 _ ~
~ ~ W ~ w
mrc W pWt-J
w
?
t~
. s O
~~
~ W ~ ~
J
a.
'
'
0 w
i
' w;
ai
i ~i
~ O!
~
oo'
,
F-~ ~
L
O Z
II O
~-
nz
~ O ~
~ N Z
Q~O
~ Q ~
~ d ~
~ ~ ~
GHQ..
~ W
ui z
*~ o
O
z
ib
~~
~rc
?a
Es
~ z
o
U W~W
~Wd
U
ZZ
m~p
W
~~ Q
~ Vp
~~3
a U ~9 ?
~~~_
XX K
W om
~ a~3
?
~ F oz
O
~ _
>Q
~ v
~ ~
_
m
"_
m ~
= ui
°
_~ l`J a
U
~
~
P
= i
Iii
`^ a
i°
o
®
• u ~~®
~
Yil~
p S~
~- '
Z
0
o
~
°
o
!~U y. LL ~
1- ~ r
O 1 N a
~. caj w ~ ~
N Z = a
,Q
del
vw
~ 4 0
~
m~ >
~ .
m
=g ~
to
-
V
rc LLf U
w
z~
~I U ~
w K o
N o
RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION DENYING
VARIANCE REQUEST V 09-01
AND ESTABLISHING
FINDINGS OF FACT THEREFORE
WHEREAS, Application was made on February 9, 2009 by Fred McCoy for a Variance
to expand his restaurant for the property legally described as the east 30
feet of the west 89 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Village of Elk River, Section 34,
Township 33, Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota., 651 Main Street).;
and
WHEREAS, The application for approval (the Application) was referred to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council conducted a public hearing on the Application, after
proper publication and due notice thereof as required by ordinance and
statute, on February 17, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Following completion of the public hearing, the City Council made the
following findings of fact with respect to the application:
1. The application does not meet variance criteria 1-4 set forth in
Section 30-635
2. The entire proposed 30 foot addition is within the DNR defined
bluff line setback
3. The proposed addition and existing building will exceed the allowed
impervious surface by approximately 45%.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ciry Council of the City of Elk
River, based on the findings of fact set forth above, hereby denies the Application for a
variance to expand a restaurant.
Passed and adopted this 17`" day of February 2009.
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tina Allard, City Clerk
S:\Resoludons\Resolution-Denial V 09-0l.doc
RESOLUTION 09 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
VARIANCE REQUEST V 09-01
AND ESTABLISHING
FINDINGS OF FACT THEREFORE
WHEREAS, Application was made on February 9, 2009 by Fred McCoy for a Variance
to expand his restaurant for the property legally described as the east 30
feet of the west 89 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Village of Elk River, Section 34,
Township 33, Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota., 651 Main Street).;
and
WHEREAS, The application for approval (the Application) was referred to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council conducted a public hearing on the Application, after
proper publication and due notice thereof as required by ordinance and
statute, on February 17, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Following completion of the public hearing, the City Council made the
following findings of fact with respect to the application:
1.
2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ciry Council of the City of Elk
River, based on the findings of fact set forth above, hereby approves the Application for a
Variance to expand a restaurant, on condition that:
1. Ciry engineer shall approve, prior to construction, a bluff re-
stabilization plan and stormwater retention plan.
2. Use approved materials consistent with the downtown design.
guideline.
3. Subject to DNR review and approval.
4. Any item or condition found that indicates the site is likely to yield
information important to prehistory or history shall be reported to
the city immediately. Further, the city reserves the right to stop work
authorized in its approval until the site is appropriately investigated
and work is authorized to continue by the city.
5. Building addition shall not to exceed 30 feet or no further than a line
that extends from the bluffs building and the cinema main building.
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 09-O1 Fred McCoy\Resolution-Approve.doc
Passed and adopted this 17~' day of February 2009.
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tina Allard, City Clerk
S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Varianee\V 09-01 Fred McCoy\Resolution-Approve.doc