My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.3. & 7.4. SR 11-18-1996
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1996
>
11/18/1996
>
7.3. & 7.4. SR 11-18-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:30 AM
Creation date
5/6/2003 5:16:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
11/18/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
pending future expansion of the facility. The future expansion would include <br />combiniug this parcel ,a4th the adjacent one to the east and providing access to <br />the rear of the site on from the east side of the newly combined lots. The <br />proxSmity of the ekSsting building, approxSmately 20 feet to the west property <br />liue, limits the possibility of accessing the rear of the lot along the west side of <br />tl~e exls6ng store. <br /> <br />If the apphcant were to combine the two lots and incorporate some of the plans <br />for future access to the rear of the site now, the apphcant could come up with a <br />desitin that would not require variances. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission does have some latitude regarding exterior builaing <br />f:mishes. The Commission can approve an architectural metal siding for the <br />exterior of the proposed buila~n g. The applicant will have to provide elevations <br />of the proposed building and show how the exterior is architecturally treated <br />(not a stana~ng seam panel). <br /> <br />Since the applicant is planning on fully developing the two parcels in the future, <br />it is not clear what hardship ~dll be faced by incorporating some of plans for <br />future access to the rear of the lot with this proposed plan. <br /> <br />Staff refers the Plan~ng Commission to section 900.40 of the Elk l~iver Code of <br />Ora~,~ances for the standards to consider when reviewing a variance. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />It is staffs opinion that this request does not meet the five standards required <br />to grant a variance based on the following findings: <br /> <br />The hteral enforcement of the Ordinance will not cause undue hardship <br />for the applicant because the apphcant has expansion plans for the site <br />and this proposed development could ut/lize some of those plans to avoid <br />the need for variances. <br /> <br />2. There are no special conditions which are peculiar to this property. <br /> <br />Literal application of the Ordinance will not deprive the applicant of <br />property rights enjoyed by other properties in the neighborhood. <br /> <br />There are no special circumstances or conditions that are not a <br />consequence of the applicant's action. <br /> <br />The granting of this variance will be injurious to or adversely affect the <br />health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.