Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the usefulness of the proposed porches. <br /> <br />5.3 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in <br />the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council <br />shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary <br />any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may <br />impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, <br />safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. <br /> <br />5.4 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for <br />variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the <br />individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance <br />means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to <br />circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if <br />granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations <br />alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists <br />under the terms of the ordinance.... The board or governing body as the case may be <br />may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to <br />protect" <br /> <br />5.5 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows: <br /> <br />A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls: Based on the placement of the <br />principal structure on the parcel (not parallel with any property line), the homes floor <br />plan configuration, and structural challenges, the Casper home is unable to reasonablv <br />expand without a variance. Requiring modifications to the design or a relocation of the <br />proposed two level porch would involve unreasonable changes to the addition not <br />anticipated by the home owner; removal of a useful deck; challenging structural <br />modifications; and reduce the purpose and usefulness of the proposal The <br />Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made <br />more livable, useful, and put to a reasonable use under the official controls if <br />the requested variance granted. <br /> <br />B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the landowner: The principal structure is placed in a location that was <br />best suited for the existing grade of the parcel. However. this location creates skewed <br />building lines that are not parallel to property lines that in turn affects how and where <br />additions can be placed without impacting minimum standards of the City Code. The <br /> <br />PF3492 - RPCA 070903 - Page 3 of 4 <br />