pf_03495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5 same or 30 a an existing front patio with a covered porch which extends to within 22 feet 6 inches from the front yard property line (cul-de-sac of Maple lane Court) can only be achieved with a front yard setback variance. 5.3 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. 5.4 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variancesft'om 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 ifreasonable usefor 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" 5.5 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 existing setback ofthe northeast comer of the living room of the Frigaard home is 24 feet from the front property line, which distance currently does not meet the minimWTI 30 foot setback. Mr. Frigaard submitted an improvement plan that proposed modifYing the existing porch to be slightly larger and covered with an extended roof line. Although not necessary, the proposed porch is an integral component of the overall expansion and upgrade of the home. The porch further affords the Frigaard's a functional entry, that also protect them and guests from inclement weather. Based on our analysis of the situation the Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls, if a variance is granted. PF3495 RPCA 07/09/03 - Page 3 of5