7.1. SR 11-21-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

improve privacy in a setting where homes are close together. The applicant requests to reduce their setback by almost one half. While the applicant is comfortable with the reduced distance between living spaces, the neighboring property is not yet occupied and an elevated encroachment into the setback will impact the use of their property. The purpose and intent of the setback ordinance is not met. 2. Is consistent Pith the City of Elk Diver comprehensive plan. The property is guided for residential uses and decks are allowed in residential districts. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties means that: 3. The petitionerproposes to use the properly in a reasonable manner notpeimitted by the honing ordinance; Although decks are permitted on residentially-zoned properties and the desire to build a deck is reasonable, the desire to deviate from the setbacks while other compliant options are available is not reasonable. Encroachment of a living space into the buffer area between homes is also not reasonable as it will impact the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not a consequence of the petition's on)n action or inaction;and The applicants indicated they are new to the home-building process,were not given clear and concise information from their builder, and were not aware of the required setbacks. The initial design had a deck on the west side of the house which would have met ordinance. Their desire for more windows on the west side changed the design. The opportunity remains to have a deck on the west side with minimal impact to windows and remain in compliance with all setback requirements exists. 5. The variance, ifgranted, Pill not alter the essential character of the locality. The Board of Adjustments stated the character of the locale would be altered. Board of Adjustments No one spoke for or against the variance request. The Board of Adjustments denied the request at their October 25, 2016, meeting, citing the four reasons outline in the Action Requested above. Decisions by the Board of Adjustments to deny a variance are not final and are automatically appealed for review by the City Council. Financial Impact None Attachments ■ Location Map ■ Applicants Narrative ■ Site Plan ■ Plans ■ Staff Option N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\11-21-2016\Final\x7.1 sr.docx