My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.3. SR 06-20-2005
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2005
>
06/20/2005
>
6.3. SR 06-20-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:19 AM
Creation date
6/17/2005 8:38:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
6/20/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />City Council / V 05-01 <br />June 20, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />This option also places the useable area farther away from the street, making it slightly <br />more private. <br /> <br />4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence 0/ the petitioner's own action or inaction. <br /> <br />A professional custom homebuilder constructed the home and proper research on the <br />part of the designer/builder obviously was not completed or overlooked and an <br />undersized deck can only be built in the indented location. <br /> <br />5. The variance will not be iryurious to or adverselY qffect the health, sqfety or we(fare 0/ the residents 0/ the <br />city or the neighborhood where the property is located and will be in keeping with spirit and intent 0/ the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />The request would not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity. <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment Action <br /> <br />The applicant stated that he had two concerns with Staff Option A. First, was the location <br />of the gas fireplace vent. He felt this was a safety issue and construction of a deck over the <br />vent probably would not allowed by the Building Code. He stated that they use the fireplace <br />extensively in the winter. Second, he felt the cost to construct a deck according to Option A <br />would be substantially more expensive because of the siding removal, relocating the ledger <br />board, and the increased height of the deck. <br /> <br />Staff verified the code requirements with the building inspection staff. The Code does not <br />allow the structure to come within 12 inches of the vent. If the structure falls within 12-36 <br />inches, the vent requires a shield over it to direct the heat sideways instead of up at the <br />structure. Staff measured the vent and it would be 20-22 inches away from the structure, <br />which would be allowed. <br /> <br />The Board of Adjustments denied the requested by a 4-2 vote based on the following: <br /> <br />1. THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET CONDITION #3 - LITERAL APPLICATION <br />OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE <br />PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME <br />DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. <br /> <br />2. THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET CONDITION #2 - THE HARDSHIP IS <br />CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH ARE <br />PECULIAR TO THIS PORPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND <br />WHICH ARE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF, OR APPLICABLE TO, OTHER LANDS <br />OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME AREA. <br /> <br />S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2005\ V 05-01 Sizen\ V 05-01_CC.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.