7.5. SR 06-17-2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conjecture that a deck is also better than a garage aesthetically speaking. There are no utilities located in the area of the proposed deck construction. In addition to reasonably separating properties and uses for aesthetic and safety reasons, the principal structure setbacks are in place to keep habitable spaces separated at least 20 feet (in this case) from one another. While a garage/shed can be 5 -feet from a property line, the rationale is the space is not habitable. The general purpose is not achieved. 2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. The proper y is guided for residential and decks are allowed in residential districts. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" is defined as: 3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; Under the current honing ordinance, I could extend andl or construct a garage 5 feet from the proper y line. I find it reasonable to think that a deck in this same area to the lot line would not make any more negative impact to the spirit of the honing ordinance than a garage. The garage is already encumbering an area 5.5 feet from the proper y line and the proposed deck location would encumber less than the currentgarage by an additional 2 feet. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, as decks and garages are an allowed use. The applicant believes if a garage can be up to 5 feet from a property line then a deck should also be allowed. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petition's own action or inaction; and The layout of our home as built dictates that we can onjbuild a screened -in porch and deck combination in limited ways. lie spent considerable time designing with trial and error to find the most efficient and best use of our current buildingl land. One priority was to keep the view out the rearpicture widow of our home unobstructed. At the same time, making sure the addition is structurally sound, functions with water drainage, and is a well --built addition. For a roof line that was nice to view and functioned well for both build quality and water drainage, it was 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 that we get to add measure to the side deck. The challenge pare found was that the width of our city lot, as designed, is narrow. lie have an average to below average rambler by side and footprint in my opinion and I believe our development was designed with narrow lots. Lot si-Ze being larger, this would not be an issue and one that is out of our control. No unique features appear to be on the parcel requiring a variance. The deck could be designed 2.5 feet narrower and meet the required setbacks. While the desire of the applicant is not to block the view from a window, the deck portion can be placed on the southwest side of the proposed porch in front of the window. 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locale will not be altered. I would reiterate that a garage could be built in this same area without issue, but a deck is far more appealing to our community and neighbors and is equaljsafe all things considered. N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\06-17-2019\Final\7.5 sr.docx