pf07-020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�... 4.0 BACKGROUND � 4.1 Comparison of a recent survey with older ones indicates that the Kurtzes' attached garage was inadvertently constructed as close as 2.8 feet from the south property line, and that the driveway extended over the property line — on to the neighboring property — by up to 12.5 feet. 4.2 Earlier this year, the Kurtzes were co-applicants with the neighboring property owners in their request to relocate the common property boundary as a means to rectify the existing nonconformities; although that application was approved, the land will not be transferred, and the Kurtzes are instead attempting to resolve the nonconforming conditions while maintaining the existing properiy boundary. 4.3 The applicant intends to remove driveway pavement to achieve a minimum 2.8-foot separation from the southern property line, and has requested VARIANCES to bring the substandard setbacks of the reduced driveway and the existing principal structure into compliance with the City Code. 5.0 STAFF COMMENTS 5.1 Extensive review of City records pertaining to the creation of this property and the subsequent improvements suggests that the nonconforming building setback was accidental; while this was not the fault of the applicants/property owners, it led to a 7.2- foot encroachment of the principal structure into the required 10-foot side yard setback as well as the subsequent encroachment of the driveway serving the garage. 5.2 Current site photographs are not included with this report because the driveway has been changed from what is shown on the attached survey/site plan and is not yet consistent with the conditions proposed in the application materials; the non-conformities that have been recently created need to be rectified as part of this variance process. 5.3 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 Variance Board 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. ' 5.4 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 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 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 properry 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 property exists PF07-059 RVBA 110707 Page 2 of 4