pf07-043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 Mr. Escobar owns the residential property at 175 Burke Avenue. The property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Density Residential (LR) and a zoning classification of Single-Family Residence District (R-1). 4.2 This property is traversed by two major utility easements: one in the front yard for a water main, and one in the rear/side yard for sanitary sewer. 4.3 Section 905.03A (Swimming Pool Location) of the City Code prohibits swimming pools in front yards and requires that pools observe a 10-foot setback from side and rear property lines, and §905.03B (Utility Lines) further prohibits the location of a pool above utility lines or within utility or drainage easements. This variance is prompted by the fact that the requirements of the City Code leave no code-compliant location for a pool. 5.0 STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Section 1013 of the Code states: "Where the��e are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the Variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in ha�°mony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it conside�°s necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfaYe may be secured and substantial justice done. ' 5.2 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 pi°operry under consideration, and to grant such va�°iances 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 properry 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 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 if reasonable use for the p�°operry exists under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect ". 5.3 T_he property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: Section 1004.015 of the City Code allows private swimming pools as accessory uses in Single-Family Residence Districts subject to various safety and location requirements. The public utility easements traversing the property, however, leave no code-compliant location for a pool, and would effectively prohibit the accessory use in the absence of a variance. The Planning Division has PF07-043 RVBA 080107 � ...� Page 2 of 4