Laserfiche WebLink
2. The variance is consistent with the of Elk River comprehensive plan. <br /> The variance will not affect future development or plans in the area. <br /> 3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance <br /> The applicant is expanding his deck by eight feet. The expansion is reasonable and will not <br /> adversely affect adjacent property owners. <br /> 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petition's <br /> own action or inaction <br /> The house and existing deck were built within the minimum setback making deck expansion <br /> impossible without a variance. It appears that the setback calculations were missed during <br /> an original building permit review. While an error by the city does not supersede an <br /> ordinance,in this case, a variance should be granted because accurate setback information at <br /> the time of building permitting may have mitigated the need. <br /> 5. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> The side of the house where the deck will be located is completely screened from view, and <br /> both properties are maintained as one. There is no distinction as to where either property <br /> begins or ends. The essential character of the local will not be altered in any way. <br /> Conclusion <br /> Staff recommends approval of the variance as it meets all five requirements. <br /> Financial Impact <br /> None <br /> Attachments <br /> • Location Map <br /> • Applicants Narrative <br /> • Aerials of Property <br /> • Deck Plans <br /> N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\V\V 13-08 Abel\V 13-08 Abel SR to BOA 13Aug2013.docx <br />