pf_03508 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.2 The proposed improvement reduces the parcels overall impervious coverage, but still is over the Code maximum by 575 square feet. 5.3 Section 1004.01E (Exception) reads: "If after May 21, 1959, existing houses on 50% or more of the frontage of any block have a predominant front yard different from that herein specified, all buildings hereafter erected shall conform to this predominant front yard depth, provided this regulation shall not be interpreted so as to require a front yard on more than 40 feet in depth. In review of the subject request, the City Planner has determined that the Korf home has a predominant front yard setback of 37 feet. 5.4 Mrs. Korf has accessibility and mobility problems. The proposed porch addition is being designed with railings and at a more comfortable height, making ingress and egress easier giver Mrs. Korfs disabilities. 5.5 The addition proposes a front yard extension of 7 feet 6 inches that requires a variance of the same length. The addition also proposes a side yard extension of 5 feet 4 inches that does not require a variance. The porch has a length of 36 feet along the driveway or the east facing wall. 5.6 The City Planner has reviewed the proposal, concluding that there are no reasonable, practical, or economical options available that reduce or eliminate the variance, without requiring the removal of all or partial removal or the patio/terrace. 5.7 Section 1013.02 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 city council 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. 5.8 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 property 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" PF3508 - ReA 081803 - Page 3 of 5