My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4. BASR 05-08-2007
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Board of Adjustments
>
BOA Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
05-08-2007
>
4. BASR 05-08-2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2008 9:36:40 AM
Creation date
1/25/2008 11:04:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
BASR
date
5/8/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
There are several purposes behind the establishment of a minimum lot size, including density goals, <br />and in non services area, adequate space for wells and septic systems. Although a lot split <br />application has not been received, one of the requirements for that process is to show where two <br />septic fields could be located on each property. <br />A portion of the property is also located within the Mississippi wild and scenic river district, which <br />requires a minimum of 2.5 acre lots for non-riparian lots. The northern quarter of the property falls <br />outside this district. <br />Variance Criteria <br />7. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. <br />The requirements for lot size are clearly defined, and not open to interpretation. The applicant <br />has not demonstrated evidence of a hardship. <br />2. The hardship is caused by sbecial conditions and circumstances, which aro~eculiar to the bro~er~ and the <br />structure involved and which are not characteristic o~ or at~~licable to, other lands or structure in the same area. <br />The lot is a relatively flat, currently farmed parcel rectangular is shape. There is no uniqueness <br />to the land warranting a variance from the lot size. <br />3. The .~ecial conditions and circumstances aro not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. <br />It does not appear that the applicant creating the original 4.69 acre parcel; it does not appear that <br />the applicant purchased the property with the intent to subdivide. <br />4. The literal at~blication o the~rovisions of this ordinance would debrive the t~etitioner of rights enzo~bv~ other <br />l~ro~erties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. <br />The property owner is afforded rights enjoyed by other R-1a properties, namely the use of the <br />land for single family residential use. There is no loss of rights by not allowing subdivision of <br />property not meeting minimum lot size requirements. <br />5. The variance hill not be injurious to or adversely a~ect the health, sa~ety or welfare of the residents o~the city or <br />the neighborhood where the ~ro~ert~ is located and will be in keeping with st~irit and intent of the ordinance. <br />A variance would allow subdivision of lots not meeting minimum standards established by the <br />zoning ordinance, and with the exception of the on site water and sanitation requirements, its <br />negative impacts may be negligible, especially from a visual standpoint. The applicant contends <br />that the character of the neighborhood has been established with the creation of one acre lots or <br />smaller south and west of the subject property. These lots do range in size from 20,000 to <br />48,600 square feet, with the average 29,000 square feet. These lots were platted in 1974, as part <br />of the township, before initiatives to protect the river and soils, and maintain a maximum density <br />were developed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.