4.1 PCSR 08-23-2016 DRAFT MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 July 26,2016 Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Adam Pramann, 18514 Olson Street NW, applicant—introduced himself. Chair Johnson asked him if he had any concerns with the conditions. Mr. Pramann stated that the conditions were acceptable. There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. The Board of Adjustments reviewed the five criteria for the variance requests as follows: 1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas that the request meets Criteria #1. Motion carried 6-0. 2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that the request meets Criteria#2. Motion carried 6-0. 3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas that the request meets Criteria #3. Motion carried 6-0. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petition's own action or inaction. Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein that the request meets Criteria#4. Motion carried 6-0. 5. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Crook that the request meets Criteria#5. Motion carried 6-0. Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Larson-Vito to approve the request by Adam Pramann, Case No.V 16-05,based on the finding that all five criteria can be met, and the following reasons: 1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance are met. 2. The property has a land use of residential and the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposed use is reasonable and is permitted in the zoning ordinance. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petitioners own action or inaction. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.