Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Variance application narrative: <br /> <br />Daniel & Jennifer Weinmann <br />13825 214th Ave NW <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />Parcel ID# 75-694-0314 <br />7-33-26 <br />Lot 7 Block 3 Windsor Park Third Addition <br /> <br /> I am applying for a variance due to a denial of a permit to build a deck on our house. The <br />reason given for the denial was due to the deck being in the wetland setback. I am seeking a 9' <br />variance for the proposed deck. My answers to the questions contained i n the Variance or Appeal of <br />Zoning Decision application are listed below. <br /> <br />1) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />This variance request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. At the <br />time the house was built, the City approved plans for lots and houses in my neighborhood that were <br />in proximity to wetlands. The developer provided plans showing decks for many of these houses <br />extending out toward the wetlands. The houses were approved by the City and several decks were <br />subsequently built by either the builder or the homeowners. Following construction of the <br />subdivision, the wetland setbacks were changed and the City is now trying to enforce rules that <br />were not in place at the time of house construction and were not contemplated until after the homes <br />were built. Since other homes have these decks and the decks have no impact on either the <br />aesthetics of the neighborhood or on the wetlands, the proposed deck is certainly within the general <br />purpose and intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />2) The variance is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />This variance request has no impact on the City of Elk River comprehensive plan and is thus <br />consistent with the plan. This is an existing subdivision with existing homes and existing decks <br />that were built with City knowledge and City approval. <br /> <br /> <br />3) The petitioner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />The property will be used in a reasonable manner, consistent with the way other adjacent property <br />owners are using their property. The zoning ordinance used to allow decks. The ordinance was <br />revised and as a result, an unintended consequence was that the ordinance now precludes uses <br />previously allowed, if not encouraged, by both the City and developers within the City. Building a <br />deck on a house is not only a routine occurrence and a common addition to most homes, it was <br />intended to be added to the house which is the subject of this petition. <br /> <br /> <br />4) The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of