Laserfiche WebLink
• 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 /> IDback a similar distance, or closer to the ordinary high water mark, than <br /> v95-3/planning/pc <br />