|
8
<br />
<br />As applied to the unique circumstances and topography of our property, the 100-foot setback places
<br />a tremendous restriction on the use of our land. The 100-foot setback essentially reduces the use of
<br />our half-acre lot to a third-acre lot, taking away approximately 15,000 square feet or 60% of our
<br />property, for any use which involves a structure, which is anything that is built or constructed,
<br />including a swimming pool. In other words, strict enforcement of the 100-foot setback to our lot
<br />leaves us with fewer than 10,000 square feet of usable space, which is not even considered a buildable
<br />lot size in the R1-d district. § 30-1006 (14,000 square feet).
<br />
<br />As proscribed by the DNR, the minimum lot size for recreational rivers is 2 acres with at least 200-
<br />feet at the water line, and a 100-foot setback from the OHW. Minn. Admin. R. 6105.0110, subp. 2(c),
<br />subp. 3(b)(1). It is our understanding that in 1999, the DNR approved the City of Elk River’s proposal
<br />for smaller lot sizes to accommodate its planned cluster developments, which reduced the minimum
<br />lot size in our zoning districts to 20,000 square feet. The 100-foot setback, however, remained the
<br />same. See § 30-2131(2). The 100-foot setback as applied to a lot with 200-feet of shoreline amounts
<br />to a setback taking up approximately 20,000 square feet. A 2 acre lot is approximately 87,120 square
<br />feet, so the 100-foot setback only imposes upon approximately 23% of such a lot. In contrast, given
<br />the unique circumstances of our lot, with .56 acres with 150-feet of shoreline, the 100-foot setback
<br />results in a much, much larger imposition upon our property, approximately 60% of it.
<br />
<br />The negotiation between the DNR and the City of Elk River allowing the minimum lot sizes to be
<br />reduced from 87,120 square feet (2 acres) to 20,000 square feet (less than a ½ acre) while maintaining
<br />the same, 100-foot setback for all sized-properties puts our property in unique circumstances. A 22%
<br />restriction on land use is significantly less burdensome than a 60% restriction. In light of the existing
<br />topography and the location of our home on our property, the 100-foot setback essentially serves to
<br />take 60% of our lot for the purported benefit of the entire community leaving us, alone, to bear the
<br />economic burden.5
<br />
<br />A 45-foot setback amounts to a restriction on the use of 6,750 square feet of property, which is
<br />approximately 27.7%. This amount is much more in line with the minimum lot size/100-foot setback
<br />set forth by the DNR, which is 23%, before the minimum lot size was reduced (which is also evidence
<br />that our variance request proposes to use our property in a reasonable manner).
<br />
<br />Accordingly, we are a requesting a variance because strict enforcement of the 100-foot setback severely
<br />restricts the uses to which we can put our property given our property’s unique size, topography, and
<br />location on the Mississippi River.
<br />
<br />(5) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
<br />
<br />Our requested variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. A swimming pool is a
<br />recreational facility that is a permitted, accessory use in our zoning district and our property is located
<br />on a stretch of the river designated as “recreational.” As discussed above, recreational areas of the
<br />river are areas that have undergone significant development. Implicit in this designations is that fact
<br />that fishermen, boaters, kayakers and passers-by on the river should expect to see houses, decks,
<br />
<br />5 We pay more than $6,000 in property taxes annually based upon owning, and having use of, .56 acres
<br />in the City of Elk River.
<br />
|