My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-14-2000 BA MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Board of Adjustments
>
BOA Minutes
>
2000
>
11-14-2000 BA MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2015 8:08:26 AM
Creation date
7/21/2015 8:08:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
BAM
date
11/14/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Board of Adjustments <br /> November 14,2000 <br /> Page 2 <br /> • 1. THE APPLICANT'S HARDSHIP IS THAT THE CITY ALLOWED THEM TO REBUILD ON <br /> THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION AND THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED IN 1997 <br /> INCLUDED A DECK IN THE SAME LOCATION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING <br /> PROPOSED.THE APPLICANT FEELS THEY HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT, <br /> EVEN THOUGH THE DECK WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE <br /> HOUSE,THEY COULD BUILD A DECK AT A FUTURE DATE AS SHOWN ON THE <br /> APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT. IF THEY WOULD HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE DECK AT <br /> THE SAME TIME AS THE HOUSE,THEY WOULD NOT BE BEFORE THE BOARD OF <br /> ADJUSTMENT WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. <br /> 2. THE HARDSHIP IS PECULIAR TO THIS PROPERTY IN THAT NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN <br /> THIS AREA ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THIS ONE, IN THAT THE HOUSE WAS <br /> DESTROYED AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO REBUILD ON THE ORIGINAL <br /> FOUNDATION. <br /> 3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD <br /> DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME <br /> DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL, IN FACT IT <br /> IS QUITE COMMON, FOR LAKESHORE HOMES TO HAVE DECKS FACING THE LAKE. <br /> 4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE <br /> OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. IT IS A CONSEQUENCE OF <br /> RELYING ON A PREVIOUS BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CITY. <br /> 5. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, <br /> SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD <br /> WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND WILL IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT <br /> OF THE ORDINANCE. <br /> 6. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE <br /> PROPERTY. <br /> 7. THE VARIANCE IS NOT BEING REQUESTED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ECONOMIC <br /> CONSIDERATIONS. <br /> 8. THE PROPOSED HOUSE WOULD BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING <br /> PROPERTIES. <br /> AND, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: <br /> 1. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE RESTRICTED FROM ENCLOSING THE DECK OR <br /> CONVERSION OF THE DECK TO A THREE OR FOUR-SEASON PORCH. <br /> COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. <br /> 6. Adjournment <br /> There being no further business, COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE <br /> MEETING. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION <br /> CARRIED 4-0. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.