pf_03447 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.10 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. 5.11 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" 5.12 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 parcel in question could not be developed if strict enforcement of Section 1004.01A6 and 1002.02D5 were applied. The unique shape, existin~ trees and existing topographic features of this lot pose difficult design challenges. The 30 foot setback from a public street once applied leaves little developable area on the parcel. As well, the design of the proposed home, a walkout rambler, attempts the balances the "new" versus "old" design and places a modest home on a small, under proportioned corner parcel, that slightly increases impervious coverage. Based on our analysis of the situation the Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable use under the official controls if variances are granted. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The parcel was created prior to a City Code being adopted that regulated site design. Furthermore, a building permit was issued and a home constructed in the late 1960' s that by all accounts did not meet the requirements of the Code, then or now. Add to this the unfortunate accident that occurred in 1998 and there becomes a compounding of non-conforming issues for the now vacant developable parcel. The Community Development Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. PF3447 - ReA 121602 - Page 4 of 6