My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.2. SR 12-15-2014
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2014
>
12-15-2014
>
7.2. SR 12-15-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/15/2014 12:49:41 PM
Creation date
12/12/2014 11:07:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
12/15/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Carlton, Zachary <br /> From: vicki h <br /> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:58 PM <br /> To: Carlton, Zachary; Carlton, Zachary <br /> Subject: Variance for 2 proposed lots on Norfolk ST. <br /> Board of Adjustment in care: zcarlton @ElkRiverMN.gov <br /> We, Tim and Victoria Hiller, 19340 Norfolk St., oppose the requested variance from to allow a 20 foot lot depth <br /> variance for each of 2 proposed lots (40 feet total). <br /> The proposed lots would be completely out of character with our neighborhood where the lots average 30,000 <br /> square feet. The 11,000 square foot lots seem very small and would be out of place in our existing <br /> neighborhood. Furthermore, while we understand that subdivision is possible when sanitary sewer and water <br /> become available, we expect that the city will at least uphold the minimum lot size standards. This parcel is simply <br /> too small to meet the minimum lot size requirements and the variance should be denied. <br /> The application does not meet the variance standards outlined in Sec. 30-325 (Variances) nor does it meet the <br /> standards in Sec. 30-635 (Variances) of the City Code. The applicant does not meet the standard for practical <br /> difficulties needed to grant the variance. It appears that the primary reason for the request is financial benefit to the <br /> owner, but it does not pass the reasonableness, uniqueness or essential character test as approval of this variance <br /> would be a dramatic departure of the character of this existing neighborhood. Financial benefit alone does not <br /> constitute practical difficulties. <br /> We implore the Board of Adjustments to deny the variance request based on the finding that the variance standards <br /> have not been met. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Tim Hiller and Victoria Hiller <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.