My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.2. BASR 11-23-1999
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Board of Adjustments
>
BOA Packets
>
1997-1999
>
1999
>
11-23-1999
>
4.2. BASR 11-23-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2015 3:34:48 PM
Creation date
5/20/2015 3:34:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
BASR
date
11/23/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 Board of Adjustments/V 99-16 <br /> November 16, 1999 <br /> Page 3 <br /> • he applicant literal application of the ordinance would not deprive t pp licant of <br /> rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district. A drive through of the <br /> neighborhood identified one small portable metal storage building. Metal <br /> exterior accessory buildings are allowed as long as they are smaller than 120 <br /> square feet. There are several other properties in the area which have large <br /> accessory structures that do not have metal exteriors. <br /> Any special conditions or circumstances are a consequence of the petitioner's <br /> own actions. <br /> The variance could have an adverse aesthetic impact on the adjacent <br /> properties in that they would have to look at a metal pole building. On larger <br /> lots there is more separation between structures, therefore aesthetic <br /> considerations are not as critical. However, wood structures, which are <br /> allowed, can also have an adverse impact on a neighborhood depending on <br /> Y <br /> how well they are constructed and maintained. <br /> Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny this variance request based <br /> • on the following findings: <br /> 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship. <br /> The hardship is strictly economic. According to state statute, economic <br /> considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if <br /> reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the <br /> ordinance. A reasonable use of the property, does exist under the terms <br /> of the ordinance. <br /> 2. The hardship is not caused by special conditions and circumstances <br /> which are peculiar to the property. The hardship is unrelated to <br /> property and is caused by a purchasing decision made by the applicant. <br /> 3. The literal application of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant <br /> of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district. A drive <br /> through of the neighborhood identified one small portable metal <br /> storage building. Metal exterior accessory buildings are allowed as <br /> long as they are smaller than 120 square feet. There are several other <br /> properties in the area which have large accessory structures that do <br /> not have a metal exterior. <br /> • 4. Any special conditions or circumstances are a consequence of the <br /> petitioner's own actions. <br /> S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\V99-16.DOC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.