07-14-1982 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 June 1982 RE: Johanson - Screen House Variance FILE NO: 758.09 (82.17) BACKGROUND Mr. Kenneth Johanson, 585 Keller Parkway, has requested a variance to construct a screen house or gazebo on a small strip of his property which lies between the western shoreline of Lake Gervais and Keller Parkway (see Site Location Map, attached). Due to the narrowness of the strip, a setback variance must be approved by the City. It should be noted that the structure has already been constructed because the applicant was unaware that a building permit or variance were necessary. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 1. Required Setback. As can be seen by the attached graphics, the property fronts on both Edgerton Street and Keller Parkway. Since Keller Parkway splits the property, a third front is created (by definition) in that the small strip of and has a front on Keller Parkway. In most cases, lake- shore lots would have their rear yard abutting the shoreline. Although rather confusing, the issue of front yard setback or rear yard setback becomes academic when one realizes that the setback requirement is the same for both - 30 feet. Since the strip of land in question is less than 30 feet in depth, the structure cannot be placed without a setback variance. 2. Justification for Variance. Section 922 of the Zoning Ordinance contains criteria for evaluating variances to the requirements of the Ordinance. Based upon our review of the provisions contained in 922.010 C. 2., the variance does not appear to be justified. Specifically, paragraph 2.b. requires demonstration that the applicant is deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by others. The yard requirements apply to all lakeshore lots regardless of whether the entire property abuts the lake or is split by a street. Secondly, 2.d. states that the variance can't confer special privileges to the applicant which would be denied to others in the same district. Assuming everyone else has to comply with the City standards, this variance is unfair to those who comply. Finally, it is difficult to see how this case represents a hardship as required in paragraph 2.e.. Not only has the applicant's property already been put to reasonable use by containing a dwelling and accessory structures, it appears that the 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925 -9420 l i J 9