My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. SR 11-23-1998
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1998
>
11/23/1998
>
4.1. SR 11-23-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:33:25 AM
Creation date
2/26/2004 4:46:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
11/23/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo to the Mayor City Council/V 98-12 <br />November 23, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />The applicant believes they should be granted a variance, however, staff finds <br />the applicants meet one of the five conditions for hardship as follows: <br /> <br />Literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship <br />beqause the applicants wishes for a larger deck doesn't constitute a <br />hardship. A deck can still be built. Furthermore, the sliding door is only <br />a few feet off the ground and the applicant could build steps off the sliding <br />door to a patio rather than a deck and not have to worry about setbacks. A <br />ground level patio might offer more privacy as well. Staff cannot account <br />misinformation given as it is undocumented. Financial hardship in this <br />case does not constitute a hardship. <br /> <br />The hardship is not caused by special conditions and circumstances which <br />are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not <br />characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same <br />areh. Other properties in the area have the same setbacks and similar <br />house plans. The applicants can build a deck or a patio, just not to their <br />designs. <br /> <br />The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not <br />deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same <br />district under the terms of this ordinance. Other property owners have to <br />conform to the setbacks. <br /> <br />4. The special conditions and circumstances are a consequence of the <br /> petitioner's own action or inaction. The setbacks were public information <br /> at the time the petitioners bought their home. They are still able to <br /> utilize the sliding door with a deck or patio. <br /> <br />5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety <br /> or Welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the <br /> property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the <br /> ordinance. The neighbors support the variance however, it may become a <br /> prededent for variances of a similar nature in the area. <br /> <br />Recommendation, <br /> <br />Staff and the Board of Adjustments recommends that the City Council deny <br />this request for a five (5) foot variance from the side yard setback <br />requirements based on four of the five criteria for granting a variance. <br /> <br />s:\planning\stevewen\ccmmo\v9812cc2.doc <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.