My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.4. SR 06-19-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
06-19-1995
>
7.4. SR 06-19-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2009 11:19:41 AM
Creation date
11/30/2009 11:19:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
6/26/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
the early 1970's. The applicant is proposing to add an 18' x 16' family room <br />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 />DNR Review <br />The application was sent to Dan Lais, DNR Area Hydrologist, for review. <br />Due to the fact that the home is already at variance to the shoreline <br />lakeshore setback, and that the structure will be located no closer than the <br />existing structure, the DNR did not have a problem with this request. The <br />DNR did suggest that an option could be considered to reduce the size of the <br />proposed deck in order to eliminate any potential visual impacts of the <br />surrounding neighbors. <br />Variance Requirements <br />Staff refers the Planning Commission to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk <br />River code of ordinance, for the five standards to consider when reviewing a <br />• variance. Staff also refers the Planning Commission to the applicants letter <br />addressing the five standards. Staff feels that there are adequate findings to <br />grant the variance from the ordinary high water mark: <br />• The lot is limited to the placement of an addition, due to the narrowness <br />of the parcel. The garage is located on the front of the home and due to <br />the required side yard setbacks, there is no area to place an addition on <br />either side yard without a variance. Therefore, the most logical location <br />for the addition is the north side of the home, near the lake. <br />• The applicants' home was constructed before the current shoreland rules <br />were in place, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to modify the <br />home in any way without the need for a variance. <br />• It should also be stressed that although the proposed deck is considerably <br />larger, it is not encroaching any closer on the setback than the existing <br />deck. <br />• There are also several homes located along Main Street which are set <br />back a similar distance, or closer to the ordinary high water mark, than <br />• <br />v95-3lplanning/pc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.