pf_03605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

in the the Variance public hearings, to and intent thereof and necessary so that the substantial done. the case after with the additional conditions as it and general be and 5.7 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". 5.8 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use ifused under conditions allowed by the official controls: Under most general conclusions, "reasonable use" can be achieved. However, the Community Development Department and the Variance Board have reviewed variance requests against the current lot standard (in essence how does the City allow new construction to occur on a vacant lot or parcel), as well as whether the Code may be too restrictive. Given the age of construction of both the home and detached accessory structure and the existing conditions (currently exceeding the impervious allowance by 351 sq. ft.) the City Planner has concluded that the Gustafson property cannot be put to a reasonable use. Specifically the long driveway, some 70 feet from the front property line to detached accessory structure, uses up 60% of the parcel's impervious allowance. Further, without eliminating the existing structure and removing a large portion of the existing driveway, it is nearly impossible to meet the requirements of Section 1004.01A6. The Staff has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a VARIANCE Section 1004.01A6 is granted. PF3605_RVBA_II0304.doc - Page 3 of 5