pf_03621 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In Section 1013 the Code states ..... there are practical difficulties or hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the Variance Board 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. 5.10 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". 5.11 The propertv in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: In general one can conclude that "reasonable use" can most on that structures that have been set back in excess of the Code required 30 feet, placement of accessory buildings becomes difficult. In most cases there is a lot platted in the 1950' or 1960's that is smaller than the current Code and which typically requires a lot coverage variance. In the Stemm case lot coverage in not an issue, but rather the home was set back 120 feet from the property line, which distance makes it difficult to place an accessory building without encroaching into the front yard. Due to the extensive front yard distance and a parcel that is difficult to properly place an accessory building, the City Planner has determined that it is reasonable to support a V ARIANCE to allow placement of an accessory building in the front yard of the Stemm parcel. The Staff has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a VARIANCE Section 1004.01A7 is granted. PF~62LRVBA_OI0505- Page 3 of 5