PCAgenda_07Aug28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Page 3 of 18] • 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 is entirely typical of hundreds of nearly identical lots in the Northome neighborhood. There is no characteristic that distinguishes it from similar properties. Staff finds no particular hardship in requiring that the fence be set back from the right of way according to the City Code. 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 fmds these variances are not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of the property. Any hardship in this case is self-inflicted by the property owner, who proceeded to build the fence inside the setback area in spite of (a) being informed of the setback regulation at the time of applying for the permit, in addition to earlier conferences with City staff, (b) going to the trouble to commission a survey in order to place fences accurately, and (c) being advised at an _ _._ early .phase .of. fence..c~onstrucxion _that_the~front.fenc,e .did not..conform xo required setback. and • would have to be moved. 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. Comments from Residents: Mailed notice of the hearing for the variances was sent to owners of properties within 350 feet of 1423 West California Avenue. Notice was also published in the Roseville Review. As of August 22, one written comment had been received. The writer supports granting the variance. Three neighbors contacted Staff before the notice was mailed to express disapproval. • Staff Report: 1423California fence variance August 28, 2007 Page 3 of 4