Laserfiche WebLink
<br />600 square feet, it is a result of efficient use of space and will not be noticeable to neighbors or passersby. <br /> <br />We desire to exceed the physical footprint restrictions by approximately 148 square feet, which adds 3 linear feet to <br />the length of the building. We feel that this small increase to the total size of the structure would not create a building <br />size that would be noticeably different from others in our neighborhood and would at the same time dramatically <br />improve the visual appearance of our property and our ability to store items indoors. <br /> <br />Reasonable use of the property exists without a variance. The ordinance allows both an ADU up to 1,000 <br />sq.ft. and accessory structures up to 2,500 sq. ft. Designing and constructing to standardized building <br />dimensions is understandable, but this also can be achieved by reducing the size of the building from 47’ to 44’ <br />therefore falling within the allowed square footages. The property can accommodate these uses within <br />ordinance limits and exceeding them is not necessary to achieve reasonable use. <br /> <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 /> <br />As we considered this criteria, the challenge we have is the unique size and shape of our attached garage. We <br />purchased our home in 2011 and our 2.5 stall attached garage was part of the original owner’s build. This restricts our <br />ability to build a more standard sized building and potentially increasing the cost to build. <br /> <br />The size of the attached garage is not a unique property condition but a result of the home’s design. Variances <br />cannot be granted solely because of personal preference or building economics. Many properties in Elk River <br />have smaller or larger garages; this condition is not unique and does not justify exceeding code standards. <br /> <br />5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> <br />We have lived in our home for 13 years and 7 months. If approved our property and it’s structures would remain <br />consistent with those of our neighbors. However, the external physical appearance of our property would be improved <br />by allowing us to store all of our vehicles, boats, bobcat, hockey rink and nets indoors. <br /> <br />The proposed structure would be larger than permitted in the zoning district. While indoor storage may <br />improve site appearance, approval of a variance of this scale could alter the character of the neighborhood by <br />introducing accessory dwellings that compete in size with primary residences. <br /> <br />Findings <br />• The request exceeds the maximum ADU size by 600 sq. ft. and accessory structure area by 148 sq. ft. <br />• The property can be reasonably used without exceeding ordinance limits. <br />• The applicant’s situation is not unique but is based on garage design and economic preference. <br />• Approval would conflict with the intent of the ordinance and weaken consistency with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />• The variance, if granted, could alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> <br /> <br />Financial Impact <br />None <br /> <br />Page 7 of 52