01-29-07 Item 7B, Planning Case 06-035 Variance at 3203 Shorewood Drive

Home Browse Search

are less intense of a variance than the original submission. The Planning Commission did review the revised application. Since the Planning Commission review on January 10, 2007, the City has received a letter from the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) stating that the applicants would not be required to obtain any permits for the proposed addition from the RCWD. There are two prior planning cases related to this property. Planning Case 74-010 was approved in 1974, which was for a variance to construct a garage that encroached 2.5 feet into the front yard setback. A file for a second variance to construct a garage that encroached 11.5 feet into the front yard setback was approved in Planning Case 82-022. The garage does encroach approximately 14 feet into the front yard setback. Variance Evaluation Criteria Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: I. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions permitted by the Zoning Code; 2. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and, 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship ifreasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code. Although State Statutes include guidelines for evaluating variances, the interpretation and meaning of those Statutes have been impacted by various court decisions. A somewhat common, though incorrect, interpretation of the written Statutes is that a property owner must show that they do not have reasonable use of their property without an approved variance. Instead, according to the City Attorney, the landowner must only demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable for a particular property in a given zone. Findings of Fact The City Council must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed variance meets the four variance evaluation criteria. The Planning Commission offers the following twelve findings for consideration: I. The 12,579.97 square foot lot size is classified as a legal, nonconforming lot within the R-I Zone. \iMctro-inct.lIsiardenhills\PlanningIPl(/Il/ling Cases\2006\06-035 Huyell Variance (PENDING)\OJ 1907 - CC Reporl- Huyett Variance,doc Pagel 0[4