pf_03646 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.7 In Section 1013 the Code states ..... Where there are or hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this the Variance Board shall have the 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. 5.8 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". 5.9 The property in Question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: In general one can conclude that "reasonable use" can be achieved with most variance requests. Specifically, the property owner could place the detached accessory structure 30 feet from the property line adjacent to Merrill Street and 5 feet from the rear (south) property line and all would be code compliant. However, on parcels that have principal structures that have been constructed in a manner that is deemed pre-existing non-conforming, as in the Dahlke property, there is some logic in affording the owner the ability to construct the garage in a similar location. The Planning Commission and Council have in the past considered and approved similar requests (2125 Dale Street detached, 1275 Burke Street- detached, 1828 Ryan Avenue attached, and 2016 Beacon Street - attached), though each must stand on their own merits. The property at 2201 Sandhurst has a similar situation detached accessory structure close to the property line, where it does not appear a variance was granted. The Dahlke request does reduce the aesthetic appeal and look of the rear yard but definitely creates an unpractical design addition to the parcel by requiring the owner to construct in accordance with the official controls. The City Planner has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a VARIANCE Section 1004.016 is granted. PF3646_RVBA_070605.doc- Page 3 of 5