08-01-07-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the tem1S of the Code. B. Additional Review Information: 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 apparently 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. The difficulty with this standard is what counts as "reasonable use" of the proper1y? Since most properties could be construed to have "reasonable use" without a variance, this standard was declared virtually insurmountable by the Court of Appeals. A revised interpretation of the "reasonable use" evaluation criteria has emerged from the Minnesota Cout1 of Appeals. According to the City Attomey, a property owner does not need to show that reasonable use for a property only exists with an approved variance. Instead, the landowner must only demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable for a particular property in a given zone. For example, the property owner must only demonstrate that an addition that encroaches into a particular setback is reasonable as opposed to showing that the property would only have reasonable use with the addition. While this is a much softer interpretation of reasonable use, the applicant must still address all four variance criteria listed above. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following twenty-four findings of fact for review: General Findings I. The lot size of 15,761 square feet and the lot dimensions are confom1ing 1I1 the underlying R-2 Zone. 2. The existing dwelling meetings all property line setbacks. 3. The proposed dwelling would be as close as 13 feet to the westem property line, which encroaches either 17 or 27 feet into the westem property line setback depending on the designation of the westem property line. A variance is required to encroach into the westem property line setback. 4. The proposed dwelling does not encroach on any other required setbacks. 5. The existing detached accessory structure is nonconfonning because it encroaches into the southem side yard and westem property line setbacks. The existing accessory structure is inches from the westem property line and approximately six feet from the southem side property line. 6. The proposed relocated detached accessory structure would be of the same size and dimensions as the existing detached accessory structure. Cily ofArdell Hills Planning Commission A1eetinglor July! 1,2007 \\Mel}"o-i1lCf.lIs\ardcnhil's\PlallllillgIPllllllling ('ases\2007\07-016 Gonzalez Variance (PC Table) \071 107 ~ PC Reporr - GOJ/Zalez Variallce.doc Page 8 of 13