pf_03516 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.4 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. 5.5 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 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" 5.6 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows: A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: The Community Development staffhas reviewed the existing (immediate) site conditions to determine whether there is a reasonable alternative/solution that warrants positive support for the variance requested. Based on our review ofthe Anderson situation it is difficult to distract or keep out deer with a fence of only a 6' -6" height. Thus a 2 foot 6 inch variance is required to allow an extended 9 foot high fence. Staffhas concluded that the proposed fence, 9 feet in height is a practical and reasonable solution to the uniqueness of the parcel to prohibit deer from entering and damaging Mr. Anderson's flowers and vegetables. The Anderson house lies adjacent to Lake Owasso open space and Ladyslipper Park where wildlife habitat congregate. Based on our analysis of the situation the Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be protected for continued destruction, made more hospitable, and can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls, if a variance is granted. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: When initiany corntructed the fence met all applicable codes and ordinances, and was constmcted below the required side or rear yard fence height of 6 feet 6 inches. However, the plight caused by deer over the years has PF35] 6 - RPCA 090303- Page 3 of 4