pf07-060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

--� ,.� requirements, yet no variance was considered in connection with the approval of the minor subdivision. b. In 1983, the property at 1748 Alta Vista was divided, creating the lot at 1747 Dale Street. Neither of these lots meets the minimum standards, but the minor subdivision was approved without discussion of the necessary variances. c. In 1984, the City approved a lot division at 1766 Alta Vista, creating the lot at 1765 Dale Street; here again, neither are the Code's minimum requirements met, nor were variances considered during the approval process. 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. e. In 1988, a larger subdivision was approved creating the lots at 1812, 1816, 1820, and 1822 Dale Court and 1803 Dale Street. Most of these new parcels did meet the minimum standards, but the lot on Dale Street did not achieve those standards. No variances were discussed during the review and approval process. f. Variances for substandard lots were not considered until 1997, when the owner of 1742 Alta Vista Drive applied for a minor subdivision and the required variances. According to public record pertaining to this application, the ultimate denial of the request was due to the fact that the applicant failed to provide some of the information required; the denial was apparently unrelated to the variance itself. g. Then, in 2005, minor subdivisions were approved with the appropriate variances for the newly created substandard parcels at the intersection of Dale Court with Dale Street and on Dale Street behind 1758 Alta Vista Drive. While variances were considered and approved for these most recent minor subdivisions, neither applicant was able to make a strong demonstration of the hardship they sought to relieve through the variance process. 5.5 Section 1013 of the Code states: "Where there are practical di�culties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the [City CouncilJ shall have the power, in a specifrc case and after notzce 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 far 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 property 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 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 circumstances unique to the properry not created by the landowner, and the variance, if PF07-060 RPCA 110707 Page 3 of 6