Laserfiche WebLink
excess of the Shoreland and R -1 District standards. The large <br />accessory building will be removed to comply with the required <br />five foot setback for buildings constructed prior to 1980. It <br />does not appear that the DuCharme parcel could be further split. <br />The granting of such a variance requires that the City find that <br />special conditions exist which are unique to the property, and <br />there is a genuine hardship in complying with the terms of the <br />Ordinance. Since it is not possible to provide a full public <br />street to the property, it could be viewed as a genuine <br />hardship, however, this rationale is not clearly stated in the <br />variance criteria. The policy issue is whether or not the City <br />will want to grant such a variance in similar situations. <br />Therefore, the City must clearly define the conditions under <br />which the variance /lot split is to be either approved or denied. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The City is under no obligation to grant the variance. While the <br />Liebel project shared some similarities with this project, the <br />former was dealing with a lot of record. If the City is inclined <br />to approve the application, the following items should be made a <br />part of the approval. <br />1. Removal of buildings as shown on the concept plan. <br />2. Assurance that no further subdivision can occur. <br />3. Submission of driveway easement maintenance agreements to <br />the satisfaction of the City Attorney. <br />4. Review of utilities issues by the City Engineer. <br />cc: Joel Hanson <br />Kathy Glanzer <br />John Palacio <br />Dave Harris <br />Mike Lynch <br />Tom Sweeney <br />Tim Murphy <br />Archie DuCharme <br />2 <br />Page 54 <br />