Laserfiche WebLink
In addition to reasonably separating properties and uses for aesthetic and safety reasons, the <br />principal structure setbacks are in place to keep habitable spaces separated at least 20 feet (in this <br />case) from one another. While a garage/shed can be 5-feet from a property line, the rationale is <br />the space is not habitable. The general purpose is not achieved. <br /> <br />2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. <br />The property is guided for residential and decks are allowed in residential districts. It is consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying <br />with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties means that: <br /> <br />3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning <br />ordinance; <br />Under the current zoning ordinance, I could extend and/or construct a garage 5-feet from the property line. I find it <br />reasonable to think that a deck in this same area to the lot line would not make any more negative impact to the <br />spirit of the zoning ordinance than a garage. The garage is already encumbering an area 5.5-feet from the property <br />line and the proposed deck location would encumber less than the current garage by an additional 2-feet. <br /> <br />The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, as decks and garages are an <br />allowed use. The applicant believes if a garage can be up to 5 feet from a property line then a deck <br />should also be allowed. <br /> <br />4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of <br />the petition's own action or inaction; and <br />The layout of our home as built dictates that we can only build a screened-in porch and deck combination in limited <br />ways. We spent considerable time designing with trial and error to find the most efficient and best use of our current <br />building/land. One priority was to keep the view out the rear picture widow of our home unobstructed. At the <br />same time, making sure the addition is structurally sound, functions with water drainage, and is a well-built <br />addition. For a roof line that was nice to view and functioned well for both build quality and water drainage, it was <br />required that we line up the side wall of the screened-in porch with the side wall of the house. It is from that location <br />that we get to add measure to the side deck. The challenge we found was that the width of our city lot, as designed, is <br />narrow. We have an average to below average rambler by size and footprint in my opinion and I believe our <br />development was designed with narrow lots. Lot size being larger, this would not be an issue and one that is out of <br />our control. <br /> <br />No unique features appear to be on the parcel requiring a variance. The deck could be designed <br />2.5 feet narrower and meet the required setbacks. While the desire of the applicant is not to block <br />the view from a window, the deck portion can be placed on the southwest side of the proposed <br />porch in front of the window. <br /> <br />5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> <br />The essential character of the locale will not be altered. I would reiterate that a garage could be built in this same <br />area without issue, but a deck is far more appealing to our community and neighbors and is equally safe all things <br />considered. <br /> <br />N:\\Departments\\Community Development\\Planning\\Agendas\\BA Packets\\2019\\05-28-2019\\V 19-02 sr BOA 5-28-19.docx <br />