CCP 12-16-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #02-28 Page 2 of6 . Variance Criteria The applicants recently erected a garden shed in the southwest corner of their lot. A resident alerted the Code Enforcement Officer that the shed may not have been in conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant was then notified of the shed's non-conforming status in a letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated October 2, 2002. After consultation with staff, the applicant submitted the aforementioned request for a 40-foot variance to the Side Yard Comer Setback area and a 6-foot variance from the Rear Yard (accessory) Setback area. At the Planning Commission meeting on November 6th, the Commission tabled the applicant's request for additional information. Since that time the applicant has been reviewing alternate locations on the property in efforts to submit a diagram or analysis which depicts potential locations and their merits. Staff has also reviewed the property and believes that the newly proposed location would be a better site for the shed. At the newly proposed location the Side Yard Comer setback would be 30 feet (a variance of 10 feet) and the Rear Yard (accessory) Setback area would exceed the requirement 10 feet. Although the new proposed location would still require a variance, the amount of a variance would be greatly reduced from the previous request and the negative impacts would be minimized. The shed would be far less noticeable from the South and should not interfere with the visibility from the neighbor to the south's driveway, The shed would be more than 25 feet east of the row of evergreen trees at the thickest part oftheir . cover. The shed would be less visible from the north at Nursery Hill Lane because it would be shielded from view by the house and an evergreen which sit north of it. Third, the shed would not be located on or near the drainage and utility easement. One negative impact may be that it could worsen flooding problems in the southwest corner of the lower level of the applicant's home. The applicant has stated that there is already a problem of water seeping into the house in this area and thinks that a shed in this location could worsen this situation. The applicant stated that this was one of his initial reasons for locating the shed in the southwest comer of the property and not at the newly proposed location. The applicant and staff have discussed potential methods for mitigating problems of excess water entering the lower level ofthe applicant's house. A. State Requirements Minnesota State Statue in Chapter 462.357, Subdivision 6, (2), defines "undue hardship" as: "... means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship ifreasanable use of the property exists under the terms afthe ordinance..." .