Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada /Oliver Becker Variance & Subd. Request <br />April 2, 1987 <br />Page Three <br />d. Granting the variance requested will not confer <br />on the applicant any special privilege that is <br />not denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, <br />or buildings in the same district. <br />e. A genuine hardship exists in complying with the <br />literal terms of this Ordinance. <br />The variance question at hand, given the background of the <br />property presents a special concern based upon Provision <br />2.c. In this regard, the present problem is clearly the result <br />of the present property owner and applicant's own actions. <br />In giving full consideration to this request, it is only <br />fair to point out however that single - family housing units <br />constructed on legally divided lots prior to 25 June 1980 <br />are grandfathered exceptions which are allowed a 5 foot side <br />yard requirement (Section 9O5.O2O.C.). In this regard, the <br />house does qualify as it was constructed in 1972. The legal <br />division is however only now being pursued which necessitates <br />the 5 foot side yard setback variance. It is again pointed <br />out however that at the time of construction, 10 foot side <br />yards were.required. In summary therefore the problem presently <br />being confronted is a result of the applicant failing to <br />plan properly for future possibilities. <br />Should the variance be considered acceptable the subdivision <br />as proposed from a technical perspective meets Ordinance <br />minimums. Our only additional recommendation would be to <br />require lot line drainage and utility easements. Per City <br />Council policy, this determination is left to the City Engineer's <br />opinion. <br />I. RECOMMENDATION <br />Given what are viewed as policy determinations involved in <br />this request, our office is not taking a firm position on <br />the variance matter. Our reading of the City code would <br />suggest that the variance does not meet the tests which have <br />been established. We do recognize however the possible policy <br />interpretation involved and will therefore not comment further. <br />If the. variance is approved, it should be based upon a finding <br />of fact. If denied, the applicable Ordinance Provisions <br />cited in this report should be referenced. <br />Page 30 <br />