Laserfiche WebLink
Case File: V08-01 Rocky'S Manor <br />Page 3 Pamela Rorwick <br />Applicable Regulations <br />Variance Criteria <br />1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. <br />Literal enforcement of this ordinance allows this lot to be subdivided; the existing house on the <br />lot is an obstacle to comply with frontage requirements. Is it possible to draw a line that allows <br />the 160' of frontage for both lots. <br />2. The hardshjtk is caused by 4ecial conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the 4roteM and the <br />structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or aO icable to other lands or structure in the same area <br />There are no special conditions or circumstances that are peculiar to this property that result in <br />the smaller lot frontage, with the exception of the existing house, which could be removed in <br />order to create two conforming lots. <br />3. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the -petitioner's own action or inaction. <br />By not removing the existing house, the applicant creates her own hardship in reducing the lot <br />frontage in order to keep the house. <br />4. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would derive the Petitioner of rights en�o�by other <br />-properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. <br />A single family home already exists on the property. Single family uses surround this property, <br />literal enforcement doe not deprive the petitioner of the rights enjoyed by other properties in <br />this district, as this property is currently developed as single family. <br />5. The variance will not be injurious to or adverselyaffect the health, safety or we are of the residents of the citor <br />the neighborhood where the_Pro4eM is located and will be in kefping pith spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br />The neighborhood recently changed from 10 acre lots to 2.5 acre lots; therefore smaller lots are <br />permitted, but the 160 feet of frontage applies, reducing that does not keep the spirit and intent <br />of the ordinance. <br />Staff does not believe there is a valid hardship to grant this variance, other than inconvenience. The <br />applicant has stated that their goal is to sell for future development the Lot 1. There are alternatives <br />that would allow this transfer, the most common is to plat that property as an oudot. Oudots do <br />not require street frontage; and do not allow any construction until it is replatted with appropriate <br />street frontage, lot size, etc. <br />As the rural areas of Elk River convert to higher density development, these variance questions will <br />become more and more frequent. It is imperative at this stage to establish a precedent of <br />maintaining the Zoning Ordinance standards. <br />S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\Variance\V 08-01 Pamela Rorwick\BOA report.doc <br />