Laserfiche WebLink
and a 16' x 16' L-shaped deck which wraps around a portion of the north and <br />east side of the home. <br />• The applicant's lot is a long, narrow, 66 ft. wide parcel. Due to the way the <br />home was constructed, and the narrowness of the lot, the applicant has very <br />few options for placing the addition where it will not need a variance. Note <br />the attached site plan which shows how the home is located on the parcel. <br />The attached memo to the Planning Commission explains this request in <br />detail. <br />Plannine Commission Meetintr <br />At the May 23, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission <br />concurred with staffs findings and recommended approval of the variance <br />based on the four findings as listed by staff. <br />Recommendation <br />Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 22 foot <br />variance request by Paula and Ron Dargis, based on the following findings: <br />1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause unnecessary <br />• hardship by not allowing the applicant to construct a deck or family <br />room addition in a reasonable location on the parcel. <br />2. The variance is not a consequence of the petitioners' action but due to <br />the construction of the home prior to the shoreland ordinance. <br />3. Granting the variance will not be injurious or adversely affect the <br />health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Elk River or <br />the neighborhood where the property is located, as other homes in the <br />area are set back a similar distance from the lake. <br />4. The coverage ratio of the home on the parcel is approximately 10%. <br />Therefore, the addition would not exceed the maximum 25% coverage <br />ratio and would give a clear indication that a house of this size is <br />excessive for the parcel. <br />• <br />s:council:v95-3 <br />