pf08-019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � E� hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent 6� thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers rrecessary so that the 6 i public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice dorre.. " F� 6.3 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides authority for the City to "hear requests for �q variances from the literal provisiorts of the o�°dinance in instances ivhere their strict �o enforcemerrt would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the i � individual properry under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is �� demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping wzth the spirit and intent of the ��3 ordinarrce. `Urrdue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance i4 means the property in question carrnot be put to a reasonable use if used under i� conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the la�downer is due to iF czrcumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if �� i granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Ecorromic considerations i� alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists ip under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as the case may be may so impose corrditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance arrd to protect ". fS j s� s� �?� �� 86 F, i �� £S G �a�� 6.4 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: Planning Division staff believes that Lot 4 can be put to reasonable use without a variance, but that the issue is really more of a practical difficulty pertaining to the design of the lots rather than a hardship pertaining to use. The existing house was built in 1959 and was addressed as 1940 Cleveland Avenue until 1963 when the Loren Acres No. 1 plat was recorded. This plat created Loren Road and a lot line in a rear yard that was predictably radial to the nearby cul-de-sac turn-around, but that was at an arbitrary angle with respect to the house. As long as Lots 3 and 4 of the plat have been under common ownership, these lots comprised a single residential parcel, so the common lot line has been irrelevant. Now that the current owners intend to build a home .�� on Lot 4 it has become clear that the shared property boundary is not in a location that �:% respects the functionality of the back yard of the existing home. The Planning Division �a� has determined that the proposed lot line recombination would relieve a practical �� difficulty and that approving a vAR�ANCE in this case would be in harmony with the u � general purpose and intent of the City Code. �ah 6.5 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by �� i the landowner: As noted above, the lot lines were created in 1963, four years after the s� house was built in 1959, and long before the applicants took ownership of the property. �� The Planning Division has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to � oo unique circumstances not created by the landowner. � o � 6.6 The variance, if �ranted, will not alter the essential character of the localitY: The � o:- realignment of the property boundary will make Lot 4 basically mirror Lot 5 of the same � o� Plat, will have no visual impact on the surrounding area, and will only serve to improve � ou the utility of the two affected residential properties. The Planning Division has � o�. determined that the allowance of a vaRiaNCE will not alter the essential character of � u�� the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare of the �o� city or adjacent properties. PF08-019 RCA 061608.doc Page 3 of 5