Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Applicable Regulations <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 />Applicants’ response: The variance request supports the intent of the ordinance by allowing safe and functional use of <br />the property in a residential manner. The deck expansion is modest, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and <br />does not create adverse impacts on adjacent properties. <br /> <br />The purpose of setback requirements is to maintain adequate separation between structures for safety, <br />access, neighborhood consistency, and utility needs. The proposed deck expansion would further reduce the <br />required side yard separation, conflicting with the intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. <br />Applicants’ response: The variance supports reinvestment in existing housing, enhances neighborhood livability, and <br />maintains the residential character of the community. The proposed deck expansion is consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan’s goals for preserving and improving established neighborhoods. <br /> <br />The property is guided for residential uses, which includes decks, and the property is currently improved with <br />a home and deck that provide reasonable residential use. Expanding a deck to 5.5 feet away from the <br />property line does not align with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for orderly development and protection of <br />infrastructure. <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 />Applicants’ response: A modest deck enlargement is a common and reasonable residential use. Strict application of the <br />setback requirement would prevent the property owner from improving their home with a safe and functional outdoor <br />living space that is typical in the neighborhood. <br /> <br />The property is currently improved with a home and deck that provide reasonable residential use. While the <br />existing deck is smaller than desired, it may be maintained or replaced within its current footprint without <br />requiring a variance and expanding the deck can also be accomplished without requiring a <br />variance. Expanding the nonconformity is not necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. <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 />Applicants’ response: The lot layout and placement of the existing home limit the available space for deck expansion. <br />These conditions are unique to the property and were not created by the current owner. <br /> <br />The lot configuration and existing house placement are not unique among properties in this neighborhood. <br />Many nearby homes have similar layouts and conforming decks or patios within the required setbacks. A <br />compliant deck could be designed without the need for a variance (see Staff Exhibit A). Therefore, the <br />circumstances are not unique and appear to result from the homeowner’s preference for a larger structure <br />Page 7 of 83