Laserfiche WebLink
During the public hearing, the applicant presented a revised plan reducing the requested size from the original <br />780 sf to 590 sf. The applicant also indicated that neighboring property owners had submitted letters of <br />support, which were provided to the Commission for consideration. <br />The BOA, after reviewing the new plans, did not feel that the proposal met the ordinance standards for <br />approval of a variance. They felt that a small encroachment, consistent with what was currently under <br />construction, met the ordinance standards and approved a variance for 20 sf above the ordinance limit. <br />The city code provides an appeal process, and the applicant has exercised that option to request City Council <br />review of their updated request for a 590 sf structure (190 sf variance). <br />Staffs concern has been, and continues to be, that there are no plight/circumstances unique to the property <br />that created a hardship to allow for an increase in personal storage. The desire for additional storage is not a <br />hardship but a plight the property owner created. <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: This request is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance because it allows us to safely and <br />responsibly improve existing lakeshore amenities without creating environmental impacts. The variance supports the <br />continued use of a modest storage structure for water -oriented items (kayaks, oars, lifejackets, etc.) and the <br />replacement of a deteriorating deck with a safe structure. Neither project contributes to erosion, runoff, or shoreline <br />degradation. <br />The intent of the lakeshore setback and accessory structure standards is to provide some unique storage (400 <br />sf. max) opportunities because of the relationship to a water feature and to preserve the natural character of <br />the shoreline, protect water quality, and maintain consistency among lakeshore properties. Allowing a <br />structure larger than what is permitted within the shore impact zone would conflict with these goals. The <br />variance is therefore not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. <br />2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River's comprehensive plan. <br />Applicants' response: The request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan by preserving the residential and <br />recreational character of the lakeshore. The addition to the small storage shed ensures adequate space for water - <br />oriented equipment, while the rebuilt deck provides safe access and enjoyment of the property. Both improvements <br />update pre-existing structures and are compatible with the development pattern of surrounding lakeshore homes. <br />While the property has a land use guidance for residential, and the proposed single-family residential use is <br />consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the plan also emphasizes protecting natural resources, especially <br />along lakes and wetlands, by enforcing setbacks and size limitations for structures near the water. Expanding <br />the existing water -oriented structure beyond ordinance limits is not consistent with these objectives. <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 />Page 294 of 447 <br />