My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.4. SR 05-17-1999
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1999
>
05/17/1999
>
6.4. SR 05-17-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:34:17 AM
Creation date
2/28/2005 3:07:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
5/17/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Memo to the City Council/V 99.5 <br />May 17, 1999 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />under the terms of this ordinance because the adjacent property at <br />present does not conform to city regulations regarding parking setbacks, <br />curb and gutter, paving etc. <br /> <br />4. Staff believes that there are no special conditions and circumstances and <br />that the need for a variance is a consequence of the petitioner's own action <br />or inaction because a smaller addition, although not fully meeting the <br />applicants immediate needs, can be built and comply with city ordinances. <br /> <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 because the <br />portion of the fire lane that is proposed for the setback area will be made <br />of gravel with grass over it. The area cannot contain trees, however it <br />would not be plowed and would be green. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Staff and the Board of Adjustments recommend that the City Council deny <br />this request for a variance from the drive aisle requirements because the <br />applicant cannot meet the following criteria: <br /> <br />1. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WILL NOT CAUSE <br />UNDO (UNNECESSARY, UNAVOIDABLE, EXTREME) HARDSHIP. THE <br />APPLICANT AT PRESENT HAS A REASONABLE USE OF THE SAID <br />PROPERTY AND IS ABLE TO ADD ON, ALTHOUGH NOT TO THE EXTENT <br />BEING PROPOSED. <br /> <br />2. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT CAUSED BY SPECIAL <br />CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE <br />PROPERTY OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED BECAUSE WITH A SMALLER <br />BUILDING A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. <br /> <br />4. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND <br />CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE IS A <br />CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION <br />BECAUSE A SMALLER ADDITION, ALTHOUGH NOT FULLY MEETING THE <br />APPLICANTS IMMEDIATE NEEDS, CAN BE BUILT AND COMPLY WITH CITY <br />ORDINANCES. <br /> <br />f: \shrdoc\pl anning\stevewen \ccmmo \ v99- 5 cc. doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.