2003-041 Council Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

City Council Meeting McGough Variance March 24, 2003 As noted in the above chart, the subject property is surrounded by properties which are • similarly zoned and guided. • • The required rear yard setback for the property is 30 feet. The applicant is asking to build 10 feet into the rear yard setback, or 1/3 of the setback area. Setbacks are established to provide safety and aesthetic value to a property. As such, they provide for not only the subject property, but the surrounding properties as well. To this end, setbacks are a key tool in keeping lots from being over - built, and maintaining adequate open space on property — and by extension, in the City as a whole. Further, variances are governed by issues of hardship. Section 2, subdiv. 4.A of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal, and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a Finding of Fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: the property can and is being put to reasonable use. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, and not created by the landowner. Comment: there are no physical circumstances unique to the property in this case. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: there is no hardship demonstrated and the property can be put to reasonable use. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: Lacking any unique physical circumstance /condition or hardship issues, granting the variance would be conferring special priviledge on the applicant. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: there is no hardship demonstrated and no unique physical circumstances in play in this case, and as a result, granting the variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.