CCAgenda_05Jul27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f. That the variance(s) will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; 1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds th at these variances will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown to endanger public safety. 2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic of the tract is such as to distinguish it substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning district of which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were carried out. This property, a legal lot of record, is distinguished from other B-1 properties in that the sum of the required side setbacks is greater than the total width of the property. This creates a particular hardship for any owner if the strict letter of the Chapter is carried out because it renders the property literally unusable for any permitted or conditional use defined for a B-1 parcel. h. Whether the variance is sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of the property, and to determine whether a substantial hardship to the owner would result from a denial of the variance. • Staff finds these variances are not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of the property other than the ordinary gain from the running of a viable legal business. Staff finds that substantial hardship would be imposed by denial of the variances on lot coverage and parking. If the lot coverage requirement were enforced, a much greater variance on parking would be needed and the overflow parking and traffic would spill into the neighborhood. The lot is too small to accommodate all the required parking for this use, even if all landscaping were to be eliminated. Either alternative would impose substantial hardship on the owner. Substantial hardship would also be imposed by requiring an owner to set up business in the existing building as this building is too small to accommodate this legal use, and parts of it do not meet the requirements of the State building code. i. Whether the conditions which give rise to the application for the variance arose after the adoption of this Chapter of the Code of the City of Falcon Heights or any amendment thereto which placed the tract in a zoning district different from what it was under the Chapter. In the consideration of this item, the City shall make diligent inquiry as to all changes in the property and shall refuse to grant the variance if the problem is one that can be solved through a proper application of a conditional use permit or an amendment of the Zoning code. Financial hardship shall not be a basis for the granting of a variance when the owner purchased the property in reliance on a promise that a variance would be granted, and the City shall dismiss the appeal if it shall appear that the property was purchased on such reliance. • Not applicable. 6 6