06-27-2007 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would not appear to be necessary to make "reasonable use" of the property. Second, even if expansion is appropriate for reasonable use, it appears that there is adequate room on the property to expand the structure. The primary reason that an expansion to the north would not be practical is cost, a consideration that the ordinance states must not be the basis for a variance. It further appears that an expansion of lesser dimension could be designed that would meet the setback, although this expansion would be less desirable to the applicants. As a result, it does not appear that the requirements for variance are met by this request. Summary and Recommendation The ordinance makes specific requirements on the City's consideration of variances. Because staff does not believe that these requirements have been met, we recommend denial of the variance based on the following factors: 1. There appears to be room on the property to the north for substantial expansion area without the need for variance. 2. Expansion into the front setback area would be inconsistent with other structures in the neighborhood. According to the applicant's estimates, an expansion of three feet less would meet the requirements of the ordinance. 4. Alternatives to the proposed variance are based in economic considerations which the Zoning Ordinance does not permit as reasons for variance approval. If an expansion is proposed toward the street (whether the variance is granted or not), the setback should be verified by a certificate of survey. Pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Paul and Jody Wittner, 231 Demont Ave. E., Little Canada, MN 55117 2