Laserfiche WebLink
C & C north America. Inc. <br />To: Tim <br />From: Jennifer <br />Re: Lake Elmo Variance [Undue Hardship for Lot 1, Block 1, Eagle Point Business <br />Park 6th Addition <br />Date: July 20, 2006 <br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: <br />Based on C & C North America, Inc.'s variance request submitted by Scott Wiestling of <br />Finn Daniels Architects on July 7, 2006, Travis Germundson of DNR Waters <br />recommended that the City of Lake Elmo reject our proposal for a variance based on the <br />following objections: <br />1. In addition to building setback variance request, the parking area and storm water <br />pond would also require additional variance; <br />2. Grading outside the property boundary is not consistent w/ the ordinance and <br />alterations of topography must only be allowed if accessory to permitted or <br />conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent properties; <br />3. The entire parcel appears impervious; <br />4. Does not see evidence of a hardship. <br />It appears that Mr. Germundson was not provided accurate information on items 1 and 3 <br />as our plan does in fact meet the requirements. Item 2 can easily be revised to suit Mr. <br />Germundson's requirements. As to item 4 regarding demonstration of hardship it is <br />obvious that property has unique shape and characteristics, making it extremely difficult <br />for any structures to be built without requiring some sort of variance. Analysis of the <br />above is laid out below. <br />It is important to lay out the definition and requirements of "undue hardship" before <br />addressing the reasons for the requested variance. This analysis clearly shows the <br />requirements of undue hardship are clearly met. <br />AVEN79N.A; <br />�.�®STONE <br />366 Jackson Street, Suite 100 • St. Paul, Minnesota ^ Ph 281.494.7277 • Fx 281.494.7299 • silestone.com <br />