pf07-060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

---. .-. 1 a. In 1971, four lots were created at 1800, 1804, and 1808 Alta Vista Drive and 1781 2 Dale Street. The parcel fronting Dale Street fails to meet lot depth requirements, 3 yet no variance was considered in connection with the approval of the minor 4 subdivision. 5 b. In 1983, the property at 1748 Alta Vista was divided, creating the lot at 1747 Dale 6 Street. Neither of these lots meets the minimum standards, but the minor 7 subdivision was approved without discussion of the necessary variances. 8 c. In 1984, the City approved a lot division at 1766 Alta Vista, creating the lot at 9 1765 Dale Street; here again, neither are the Code's minimum requirements met, 10 nor were variances considered during the approval process. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 d. A minor subdivision proposal for the property that is currently being considered, again creating two nonconforming parcels, was approved in 1986 without the required variance. Although no specific timeframe was discussed in which the applicant needed to record the new legal descriptions at Ramsey County, enough time has passed that Community Development staff has directed the applicant to submit an entirely new application rather than simply ask the Council to reaffirm its previous approval. 18 e. In 1988, a larger subdivision was approved creating the lots at 1812, 1816, 1820, 19 and 1822 Dale Court and 1803 Dale Street. Most of these new parcels did meet 2o the minimum standards, but the lot on Dale Street did not achieve those standards. 21 No variances were discussed during the review and approval process. 22 f. Variances for substandard lots were not considered until 1997, when the owner of 23 1742 Alta Vista Drive applied for a minor subdivision and the required variances. 24 According to public record pertaining to this application, the ultimate denial of the 25 request was due to the fact that the applicant failed to provide some of the 26 information required; the denial was apparently unrelated to the variance itself. 27 g. Then, in 2005, minor subdivisions were approved with the appropriate variances 28 for the newly created substandard parcels at the intersection of Dale Court with 29 Dale Street and on Dale Street behind 1758 Alta Vista Drive. While variances 30 were considered and approved for these most recent minor subdivisions, neither 31 applicant was able to make a strong demonstration of the hardship they sought to 32 relieve through the variance process. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 5.5 Section 1013 of the Code states: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the [Ciry CouncilJ shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. ' 5.6 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual properry under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. `Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance PF07-060 RCA 112607 Page 3 of 6