Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Applicable Regulation <br />(The applicant’s responses are italicized with staff’s notes after.) <br />Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that the variance satisfies all five of the criteria <br />described below. The variance is: <br />1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and <br />The issue I'm expecting may be the encroaching on impervious watershed. The porch will occupy the space that the old <br />existing concrete steps and the rock landscape with plastic sheeting underneath that is already imperious to water <br />anyway. The new porch will only extend about 9" beyond what will be taken out (old steps and rock). <br />The ordinance does permit front porches without a roof to encroach up to six feet into the front yard <br />setback. The proposed variance maintains the overall intent of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with <br />neighborhood patterns. The requested encroachment is modest and does not interfere with public safety, <br />access, or visual continuity. The ordinance intends to promote orderly development while allowing flexibility <br />where warranted. <br />2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. <br />Yes, as I see it now. <br />The property is guided as Traditional Single Family Residential. The suburban residential category <br />predominately consists of single-family detached homes occupying moderately sized lots. This land use is the <br />most prevalent residential type within the Urban Service Area and consists of a range of neighborhood <br />typologies. The district should accommodate single-family attached, townhomes, and duplexes which have <br />varying setbacks, in some cases down to zero. While the proposal does not meet the ordinance, it is <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with <br />the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties means that: <br />3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning <br />ordinance; <br />This front porch will be used in a reasonable manner. <br />The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner by constructing a modest front porch, <br />with a roof, that enhances the home's function without significantly altering the footprint or intensity of use. <br />Such a use is typical in residential neighborhoods and would be permitted but for the strict interpretation of <br />front setback requirements. <br />4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the <br />petition's own action or inaction; and <br />One of the main reasons for a covered front porch is for safety. The uncovered existing smooth front steps are deadly <br />in the winter icing up very easy. I personally landed flat on my back clearing the steps and hitting the sidewalk. I have <br />UPS, FEDEX, Family and friends I'm concerned about also. Plus the house needs a inviting porch overlooking Lake <br />Orono. <br />As noted, the ordinance does permit front porches without a roof to encroach up to six feet into the front <br />yard setback. The unique challenge is the inclusion of a roof over the porch. If a roof was not proposed, a <br />setback variance would not be required. <br />5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />This front porch will blend in nicely to our short city block of homes. <br />Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area as the five nearby <br />properties/structures do not have an established pattern of setbacks due to previous development patterns. <br />Page 22 of 29