05/22/2000 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 22, 2000 his opinion, the runway is the predominant feature of the property and he would like his home oriented to the south toward the runway with the hanger adjacent to Carl Street. Mr. Johnson has also submitted a letter signed by the owners of Lots 9, 12, 13, 14 and from the Vice -President and Secretary of the AirPark Association indicating no objection to the variance request. There are 19 developed lots within the AirPark. Three (3) have hangers in front of the dwelling, one (1) has an attached hanger, eight (8) have hangers on the side or behind the principal building, and seven (7) have no hanger. 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. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economi reasonable use for the property exists under t e o "ordinance. one and when a 4. That granting the variance r of confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be de s or finance to other lands, structure, or buildings in the same distri 5. That the pr ordinance. 1 be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Staff advised the curr-. , om rdinance prohibits the construction of an accessory building in front of the principal s a development plan for the lots in Lino AirPark North initially indicated that the hang ca''y on would be toward the runway. The unique nature of the drainage easement on the lot does of constitute a hardship because the home and accessory building could be constructed to meet the requirements of the Ordinance by location the hanger to the rear of the lot. Staff, therefore, is recommending denial of the requested variance. Staff noted the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this item at their May 10, 2000, meeting and concurred with the staff recommendation of denial on a 5-0 vote (Corson and Lane being absent). Council Member Carlson advised the property was purchased in 1996 at the same time a moratorium was put on building. She stated the applicant did have approval from the Rice Creek Watershed. District. She reviewed the background of the City ordinance and clarified that the ordinance was passed during the moratorium. 9