5.2. BASR 05-22-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 Allowing our variance request would meet the strategy to balance and protect natural resources while still allowing us to use our property because it we would be improving the value of our property thereby helping to attain the goal of economic development in Elk River. Our variance request is also consistent with the strategy to protect water quality because we will not create any significant or dangerous run off, we will not upset or disturb the natural topography of the bluff line, which will preserve the quality of the river water. (3) Our requested variance proposes to use our property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the W&S district’s 100-foot setback. Swimming pools are permissible, accessory uses in the R1-d district. E.R.C. § 30-991(c). If a use is a permissible accessory use in the R1-d district, it is also a permitted, accessory use in the wild and scenic district. § 30-2112(a). Accordingly, our variance proposes a use of our property in a reasonable manner because a swimming pool is a use that is consistent with the use of properties in our underlying zoning ordinances. Additionally, the requested variance will allow us to put our property to a reasonable recreational use, because it will not otherwise change the basic topography, natural beauty or appearance of our property from the river. Thus, we are seeking a variance from the strict enforcement of the 100-foot structure setback in section 30-2132(a)(1) to use our property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the broadly worded 100-foot setback in the W&S district. The proposed location of our swimming pool would be more than 30-feet from the top of the bluff, so the pool would meet the additional structure setback set forth in section 30-2022(a)(2). Nor does our proposed location place the swimming pool in the 20-foot bluff impact zone. The variance we are seeking is reasonable because we are proposing to place the swimming pool (a permitted, accessory use) as far back from the OHW as possible, approximately 45-feet from the OHW. We propose to locate the swimming pool in close proximity to the walkout portion of our house. Our property is only .56 acres in size, so the proposed location of the swimming pool is the most logical placement in relation to our house while still being in the farthest location away from the OHW as possible. (4) The inability to meet the 100-foot setback is due to the unique circumstances of our property. Our property has several physically unique characteristics that necessitate this variance request. Our lot has 150-feet of shoreline on a channel of the Mississippi River. The rear of our backyard is accented by a very steep bluff that descends down more than 30-feet to the OHW of the river. Our property was platted in the late 1990s. It is .56 acres, which is 24,393.6 square feet. Our lot is pie- shaped with dimensions of 104’ (front) x 173’ (east side) x 150’ (rear/riparian side) x 197’ (west side). It is smallest in the front and gradually gets wider in the back. Our home was built at the 100 -foot setback. Considering the size of our lot and the placement of our home on our lot, the 100-foot setback forecloses us from installing a swimming pool in our backyard even though a swimming pool is a permitted, accessory use in the R1-d zoning district. As an overlay district, the W&S district is not intended to abrogate or impair permissible land uses set forth in the R1-d zoning, nevertheless, when the W&S district imposes greater restrictions, its restrictions govern. § 30-2076.