Laserfiche WebLink
f) That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger <br />• the public safety. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the variance will <br />not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. <br />• <br />g) Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic <br />of the tract is such as to distinguish it substantially from all of the other <br />properties in the zoning district of which it is a part, or whether a <br />particular hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience to the <br />owner, would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were carried out. <br />The Planning Commission finds that denial of the variance would <br />create a hardship not a mere inconvenience to the owner. <br />h) Whether the variance is sought principally to increase financial gain to the <br />owner of the property, and to determine whether a substantial hardship to <br />the owner would result from a denial of the variance. <br />The Planning Commission finds these variances are not sought to <br />increase financial gain to the owner of the property. The Planning <br />Commission finds that substantial hardship would be imposed by denial <br />of the variance on lot coverage, in that the size of the lot would preclude <br />the owner from adding a needed bedroom. <br />i) Whether the conditions which give rise to the application for the variance <br />arose after the adoption of this Chapter of the Code of the City of Falcon <br />Heights or any amendment thereto which placed the tract in a zoning <br />District different from what it was under the Chapter. In the consideration <br />Of this item, the City shall make diligent inquiry as to all changes in the <br />property and shall refuse to grant the variance if the problem is one that <br />can be solved through a proper application of a conditional use permit <br />or an amendment of the Zoning code. Financial hardship shall not be a <br />basis for the granting of a variance when the owner purchased the <br />property in reliance on a promise that a variance would be granted, and the <br />City shall dismiss the appeal if it shall appear that the property was <br />purchased on such reliance. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the conditions which give rise to <br />the need for a variance is that the restrictions on impervious surface <br />were enacted after the lot was created and after the existing house <br />was constructed. A conditional use permit or a code amendment are <br />not feasible alternatives to the variance. <br />• <br />113667v01 <br />RNK:08/13/2004 <br />