pf_03454 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.7 Staff has reviewed the Boerigter's proposal and finds similarities to the Huppertz and Prokop proposals. Although each has separate unique characteristics, they offer one strong similarity, design. Each of the three offer design options that are tied to family needs versus a design reflecting the limitations of the code. In the Boerigter's case, the added footprint is a natural extension of the existing home that could not be met by adding a second level. 5.8 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. 5.9 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" 5.10 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 Boerigter's parcel is unable to expand its impervious coverage without receiving approval of a variance. Mr. Boerigter seeks to add a more functional living area (front porch, living room, master bedroom, bathroom, covered deck and sidewalk) to meets his family's growing needs. Reducing the existing impervious coverage cannot be accomplished. Upon review of the request, staff has determined that it is reasonable to afford Mr. Boerigter an additional I ,749 square feet of impervious coverage in order to construct the desires improvements and an 9 foot variance to the required front yard setback to construct a entry porch. The Community Development Staff has determined that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a variance is granted. PF3452 - ReA 33103 - Page 4 of 6