Laserfiche WebLink
III. Applicable Law- Minn. Stat. § 394.27, Subd. 7 (Practical Difficulties Standard) This is citing <br />the County statute for variances. <br />Minnesota law requires that variance decisions be based on the three-part "practical <br />difficulties" test. The statute does not authorize denial based on an internal staff <br />interpretation (see city definition) that expands the scope of the request beyond what is <br />legally regulated. <br />The statutory test Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6 requires: <br />1. A reasonable use of property not permitted by ordinance; § 462.357 states.,the,orooerty <br />owner,or000ses to use the property in a reasonable manner not,oermitted by the zoning <br />ordinance. <br />2. Circumstances unique to the parcel; § 462.357 states: the plight of the landowneris due to <br />circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. <br />There are no circumstances unique to the property that created a hardship to allow for an <br />increase of personal storage, regardless if it is 60 or 380 square feet over. The desire for <br />additional storage is not a hardship but a plight the property owner created. The property is <br />a standard lakeshore parcel with adequate buildable area for a code compliant water - <br />oriented structure. <br />3. No alteration of essential character of locality. § 462.357 states: the variance, ifgranted, <br />will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />Additional information in § 462.357, Subd. 6 <br />1. is in harmony with the general,ouroose and intent of the ordinance, and <br />2. is consistent with the city of Elk River comprehensive plan. <br />The intent is to provide storage (400 sq.ft.) near the water, and as also noted in the Planning <br />Commission memo, to preserve the natural character of the shoreline, protect water quality, <br />and maintain consistency among lakeshore properties. <br />This analysis applies only to the portion of the project actually regulated — the enclosed <br />storage area. It does not permit a city to artificially inflate the size of a variance request by <br />including elements that are not regulated by ordinance. Staff are classifying the deck as a <br />water -oriented structure, as defined. Based on information staff have available, the deck <br />under construction is within a large wetland complex that would not allow a traditional deck <br />at all. <br />IV. DNR Shoreland Variance Guidance - Deck Classification <br />The Minnesota DNR Shoreland Management Variance Guidance (2021) distinguishes <br />between enclosed or roofed accessory structures and open platforms, walkways, and decks. <br />Only the former are counted toward structure square footage. <br />The deck portion of this project is an unenclosed elevated platform and therefore does not <br />fall within the regulated definition. It is detached deck/water-oriented structure (see city <br />Page 303 of 447 <br />