pf10-009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

S.O STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Section 1004.016 (Residential Setbacks) of the City Code requires homes to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from front property lines. The proposed front porch would encroach 7 feet into the required setback, standing about 23 feet from the front property line. As described in the applicant's narrative (included with this staff report as Attachment C) the proposed porch would replace the existing, failing stoop and help to correct a drainage problem at the front of the house. 5.2 The subject property is 84 feet wide and 118'h' feet deep, making it about 9,950 square feet in area; even if the lot met the minimum required width of 85 feet, it would need to be about 10 feet deeper to achieve the minimum lot area requirement of 11,000 square feet. If the parcel did meet all of the minimum size and area requirements, the proposed porch could have potentially been accommodated through normal, Code-compliant means which would make the current vAxlAtvCE request unnecessary. 5.3 Even with the proposed porch on the substandard parcel, the overall impervious surface area on the property will be under the 30% coverage maximum. 5.4 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. ' 5.5 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 properry 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 ". 5.6 The propertv in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: A parcel that achieves the required lot area at the minimum required width would be deep enough to accommodate a greater front yard setback and still preserve a back yard that is at least as large as what presently exists. If this parcel met the minimum size requirements, therefore, it's possible that the proposed front porch could be approved without a vAR1AtvCE. In the present situation, only a smaller porch could be approved through an administrative process and not require a vAR�AtvCE; while a narrower porch would solve the drainage problem, porches smaller than 8 feet in width don't comfortably accommodate chairs or other furnishings while still allowing passage between the front door and the sidewalk. For these reasons Planning Division staff has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a vAxlAtvCE is approved. PF10-009 RVBA 040710 Page 2 of 3 �. ,.r�