Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Board of AdjustmentsN 00-4 <br /> November 14,2000 <br /> Page 2 <br /> • on the side of the house, not the rear facing the lake. In 1996 the original house <br /> was destroyed by fire. In 1997 the Building Department issued a building permit <br /> to rebuild the house in it's original location, about 150 feet from the shoreline. <br /> The new house plans included sliding glass doors and a deck. The deck on the <br /> new house was on the rear of the house facing the lake. The deck was not <br /> constructed at the time the house was rebuilt in 1997. The applicant applied for a <br /> building permit to construct the deck this summer and was informed that the deck <br /> did not comply with the 150 foot setback and they needed a variance. <br /> Variance <br /> Staff refers the Board to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk River Code of <br /> Ordinances for the five standards to consider when reviewing a variance. A <br /> variance may be granted only if it meets the following five conditions: <br /> 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. <br /> 2. The hardship is 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 /> area. <br /> 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the <br /> • petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under <br /> the terms of this ordinance. <br /> 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the <br /> petitioner's own action or inaction. <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. <br /> The applicant's hardship is that the City allowed them to rebuild on the original <br /> foundation and the building permit issued in 1997 included a deck in the same <br /> location that is currently being proposed. The applicant feels they had a <br /> reasonable expectation that, even though the deck was not constructed at the <br /> same time as the 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 the same <br /> time as the house, they would not be before the Board of Adjustment with this <br /> variance request. <br /> The hardship is peculiar to this property in that no other properties in this area <br /> are in the same situation as this one, in that the house was destroyed and they <br /> • were allowed to rebuild on the original foundation. <br /> S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\V004.DOC <br />