3. BASR 08-09-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PROPOSED APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (ifApproved by the City Council on 8-75-7 ~, this is for reference only) Variance Criteria: A variance may be granted by the board if it finds that: The proposed variance is in harmony avith the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and In 2004, the City Council amended the ordinance as it pertained to accessory structure sizes. At that time, accessory structure sizes on parcels five acres or larger were significantly increased as shown: 5 acres to X588 =~,U~ 1~) sq. ft. attached and detached 10 acres to 4;598 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ sq. ft. attached and detached 20 acres to {>;998 1G.~(1(~ sq. ft. attached and detached 40 acres or more wed ~c,r rn e~cced ?".'~ cif the lc,r area The subject property falls in the 10-20 acre category where the allowed square footage was almost doubled in 2004. Prior to 2004, only 4,500 sq. ft. would have been allowed. Staff does not feel that the proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance as the proposal is double the size (16,040 sq. ft.) of what was approved in 2004 and has twice as many structures (four) as is currently allowed. 2. The proposed variance is consistent avith the City of Elk Kiver comprehensive plan. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Rural Residential category shows the pattern of residential development outside of the Urban Service Area. Housing in these areas consists of single-family .detached housing units. The area consists of a combination of farmsteads, large lot rural subdivisions and cluster subdivisions. 3. The petitionerproposes to use the property in a reasonable manner notpermitted by the honing ordinance. The petitioner is proposing doubling the size of an already non-conforming structure and also maintaining twice as many allowed accessory structures. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not a consequence of the petitioner's ozvn action or inaction. The petitioner has offered no factors indicating uniqueness of the property supporting the variance. The petitioner bought the property with the existing structures, quantity and square footages, as they are. It is unknown what the condition of the subject structure was in 1994 when the applicant purchased the property. The subject structure could have been maintained. It appears that through inaction on part of the petitioner, the use of the garage has been lost. S. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the locality will not be altered if the variance is granted. N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\Variance\V 11-01 Hendrickx\V 11-01_BA.doc