pf_03540 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.6 The deck proposal calls for 12 holes to be dug for footings on to which posts would be placed to secure the deck structure. This design disturbs far less of the yard and causes minimal impact to the bluff and subsequent shoreline than that of a home addition with footings and a foundation, or an at grade patio. 5.5 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. 5.6 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" 5.7 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: Given the existing situation, Mr. Badzinski is unable to construct any improvements that expand the existing house footprint including replacing the existing deck:, without variances. This structure has existed without any additions/expansions since it was constructed in 1939 (prior to shoreland regulations). In review of the deck request the main impact is that of the encroachment and its proximity to the top of bluff, although there would be an additional encroachment to the shoreline setback. Allowing the construction of a more useable deck would create added livability to the home than currently exists today, but a 16 foot by 16 foot deck is oversized, especially for this home on this parcel. However, staff would support a reduced deck size of 12 feet by 12 feet which is practical for the parcel and a reasonable design. The Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable and practical use under the official controls, if variances not exceeding 39 feet and 18 feet are granted. PF3540 - RPCA 120303 - Page 4 of 6