pf08-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 Ms. Linell owns the residential property at 2028 Cohansey Boulevard. 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 Originally, the applicant applied for a Setback Permit to allow the same proposal. After an initial review, Community Development staff determined that the proposed 6-foot expansion plus the footings necessary for the decorative pillars could not be accommodated by the Setback Permit and that a vaxiaNCE would be required instead. 5.0 STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Section 1004.016 (Residential Setbacks) of the City Code requires that principal structures observe a 30-foot setback from the front property line. 5.2 The existing house lacks an enclosed entryway, and the existing front door brings guests (along with their coats and boots) directly into the small living room. The applicant evaluated other possibilities which would not require a vAR�A1vcE; as it is, the proposed expansion could be approved through the Setback Permit process but far the decarative pillars proposed for the front of the addition. Community Development staff believes that these pillars, and the roofline they support, would be a valuable addition to the project and a welcome feature in the neighborhood. 5.3 The pillars will be flush with the new front building wall and, while their exact dimensions were not readily available, the applicant and Planning Division staff agree that they are unlikely to be more than 18 inches deep. The proposed vAx�ANCE, therefore, has a magnitude of 7.5 feet, which leaves 18 inches for the pillars beyond the main addition. 5.4 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 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. 5.5 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 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 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 propeYty 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 ". PF08-002 RVBA 020608 Page 2 of 4 .-. v